: -fill: n 



\W\ w y\ W J 



• «5 ^ ^ 



c- , 



v ; 






^ li§' 



I V^'y ' 



J ^ y vy .^-.\y : 



v 



A© 1 



,0 <K 



^^^^^^ <^ ^^SS^^ ^^ ^^^ ^ 



1 ,0 °V^V f.^v^/f °> 



WILSON'S PLE 

1/ 



IX THK CASE OF 



LYM A N BEECHER, D. D„ 



MADE 



BEFORE THE SYNOD OF CINCINNATI, 



October, 1835. 



\***Mmu Mm? 



CINCINNATI: 
PRINTED BY R. P. BROOKS. 



APRIL, IS 37. 



Of CONGRES*] 
WASH1NGT22U 




WILSON'S APPEAL, &c. 



To the Moderator and Members of the Synod of Cin* 
cinnati, to meet in Dayton, on the 3d Thursday of 
October, 1835. 

Dear Brethren, 

I appeal to you, from the proceedings and definitive sentence 
of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in the case of charges brought 
before them, by me, against the Rev. Lyman Beecher, D. D. 

For this appeal I offer the following reasons. 

1. The Presbytery is chargeable with neglect of duty. — 
They neglected to take up the charges till five months after they 
were tabled: and then deferred the trial two months longer, for 
which delays, they have assigned no reasons. (See dis. chap. 
4, sec. 23.) 

2. When they took up the charges, they made an ambigu- 
ous record as unkind as it was unjust to the prosecutor. 

3. During the trial, Dr. Beecher was permitted to introduce 
much irrelevant matter, and irrelevant testimony. 

4. The Prosecutor was not permitted to read a letter over a 
responsible name, which was offered to the court as containing 
correct information on an important subject; but Dr. Beecher 
was permitted, when making his defence, to read several letters 
to influence the judgment of the court. 

5. The judgment rendered, was unjust, injurious and erro- 
neous. 

6. On one of the charges the Presbytery did not decide. 

7 The Presbytery disregarded the rule of discipline, (chap. 
5th, section 13th,) and they also disregarded the injunction of 
the Synod on the subject of exercising the discipline on those 
who " use words and phrases that disturb the peace of the 
Church." 

8. The Presbytery formed a creed for Dr. Beecher, not ex- 
pressing what he believed and taught, when he published the 
sermons in question, — not: what he admitted he preached in the 
2d Presbyterian church in Cincinnati, but what they understood 
him to profess at the .time of his trial. 



( 4 ) 

9. The Presbytery passed a vote of censure on me, and re- 
ferred the degree of censure to be determined by the Synod, 
for which decision and reference, they have assigned no rea- 
sons. See dis. chap. 4, sec. 23. 

10. The charges of slander and dissimulation, are more than 
constructive and inferential, being sustained by historical and 
parol testimony, which no court of Christ ought to reject. 

11. The Presbytery took testimony w T hich they have not 
recorded, and to which, no reference is given on their minutes. 

12. The Presbytery received information which they did 
not record, and then took testimony and recorded it, to refute 
that information. 

13. The Presbytery after hearing Dr. Beecher's defence, 
and my answer, permitted him to make a rejoinder contrary to 
parliamentary rule, but they haVe made no record of the fact. 

14. They have not put the reasons of my appeal upon rec- 
ord, which the rules of discipline and justice required them to 
do. 

15. A respectable minority, composed of men w T hose sound- 
ness in the faith and order of the Presbyterian church is far 
above suspicion, voted that the principal charges were substan- 
tiated by evidence, and have entered their solemn protest 
against the decision of the majority — whereas, not a few of 
those who acquitted Dr. Beecher, and passed a vote of censure 
on me, have by their preaching, measures and church policy, 
made themselves subjects of suspicion, and have excited discon- 
tent and alarm in the Presbyterian churches. To this I refer as 
a matter of public notoriety. 

When the Synod shall have investigated the whole matter of 
this appeal, and the reference and protest in connexion, I hope 
to hear them deliver a sentence as clear as that delivered by the 
Synod of Jerusalem — I expect a decision which shall sustain the 
friends of truth and order, and exclude from our ranks such as 
profess to be Presbyterians, yet continue to impugn the stan- 
dards of our church. 

Very respectfully, 

J. L. WILSON. 



WILSON'S PLEA, 



BEFORE THE SYNOD OF CINCINNATI, ON THE 

TRIAL OF DR. BEECHER, 

FOR DANGEROUS ERRORS, &c 



Moderator, 

In attempting to sustain the appeal which I have made to this 
Reverend Synod in the case of the trial of Dr. Beecher, by the 
Presbytery of Cincinnati, for the propagation of dangerous er- 
rors, and for other offences committed against the church of 
God ; and particularly that branch of the church to which he 
professes an attachment, I shall not detain you by preface or 
apology, but shall endeavor to prepare your minds for arriving 
at a correct decision of the several points at issue. 

t. By such historical details as shall clearly evince the cau- 
ses, nature, and importance of the prosecution now brought un- 
der review. 

2. By pointing out the irregularities of the Cincinnati Pres- 
bytery. 

3. By an examination of the charges, and the evidence offer- 
ed to sustain them. 

4. By an exhibition of the errors and injustice of the defini- 
tive sentence. 

I trust that you will notice particularly that this affair is 
wholly of an ecclesiastical character. It is unmixed with 
private, personal or domestic disputes. It is unmingled with 
local interests. It embraces doctrines and practice, in which 
the whole church is deeply concerned, and when once settled by 
the highest judicatories in our church, must be referred to the 
Great Master of Synods and Councils for his final adjudica- 
tion at the great day; and it affords me great pleasure to say 
that Dr. Beecher has expressed the same opinion. His words 
are these — " We have had no quarrels. There has not an un- 
kind word passed between my brother Wilson and myself, nor 
have I any knowledge that he entertains towards me the least 
personal animosity. Our differences are ecclesiastical only." — 
And again says Dr. Beecher, " This is wholly a question of doc- 



( 6 ) 

trinal differences. There exists no proof of malice on either 
side." I now ask your attention to such historical details as I 
shall give to show the causes, nature and importance of this pros- 
ecution and this appeal. 

As historical facts well authenticated, it is known to the 
members of this court, that the extensive branch of the Presby- 
terian Church to which we belong, did, from the beginning of 
their operations as a society in North America, approve and re- 
ceive the Westminster Confession of Faith, larger and shorter 
catechisms as an orthodox and excellent system of christian doc- 
trine founded on the word of God — that when the Synod of N. 
York, and the Synod of Philadelphia adopted a plan of union, 
in 175S, they also adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith 
plan of w T orship, government and discipline, strictly enjoining it 
on all their members and probationers for the Ministry, to teach 
and preach according to the form of sound words in said Confes- 
sion and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary 
thereto, leaving every member at liberty peaceably to withdraw 
from their communion when his conscience no longer permitted 
him actively to concur in or passively submit to their decisions 
in doctrine and discipline. This was done by a unanimous vote 
of 177 members. Digest, pp, 117, 11S. 

Under this arrangement they practised and prospered, till the 
close of the American Revolution; after which, a Convention 
was held, composed of committees from the Synod of New 
York and Philadelphia, of the reformed Dutch Synod, and of 
the Associate Reformed Synod, in order to lay the foundation 
of entire confidence in each other, as corresponding Synods. — 
The 23d chap, of the West. Con. of Faith, which acknowl- 
edged the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, 
was stricken out, and the three Synods gave solemn and mutual 
assurances of their vigilance in taking all reasonable measures 
effectually to secure fidelity and orthodoxy in their ecclesiastical 
officers in all time to come. 

This plan of mutual confidence was laid by these three Sy- 
nods, merely as corresponding bodies in 1786. Dig. pp. 119, '20. 

One year before, in 17S5, the Synod of New York and Phil- 
adelphia, engaged in measures preparatory to the adoption of 
the constitution of our church. It was no small task to revise 
carefully, every sentence, every word of the standards, adop- 
ted near thirty years before; but this was done by three years 
labor, and in 17SS we find the following record — "The Synod, 
having fully considered the draught of the form of Government 
and discipline, did on a review of the whole, and hereby do rat- 
ify and adopt the same as now altered and amended, as the Con- 
stitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and 
order the same to be strictly observed, as the rule of their pro- 



( 7 ) 

cccdings, by all the inferior Judicatories belonging to the body. 
And they order that a correct copy be printed of the Westmins- 
ter Confession of Faith, as now altered, in full, along with it;" 
and they farther ordered, that the Directory for worship and 
catechisms as revised and amended should be printed and bound 
in the same volume, the whole to be considered as the standard 
of our doctrine, government and worship, to be styled — " The 
Confession of Faith, and Directory for public worship, 
of the Presbyterian Church, in the United States of 
America." Having completed this arduous and useful labour, 
they by unanimous vote divided themselves into four synods, 
and appointed the first meeting of the General Assembly to be 
held in the 2d. Presbyterian Church, in the city of Philadel- 
phia, on the 3d Thursday of May, 1789, and the synod of N. 
York and Philadelphia was dissolved. Dig. pp. 120, '21, '22, 
'23, '24, compared with pp. 13, 14, 15, 37, 38, and 52, '3, 

Sir, I have brought into view these facts to wipe away an im- 
pression made on the minds of many by a contemptible sophism 
respecting the interpretation of our standards. It is said the 
standards of our church must be interpreted — and the interpre- 
tation must be given according to the usus loqiiendi of West- 
minster, and the reigning philosophy in the time of Charles I. 
Now, I contend that the standards of our church, are to be 
taken in their plain and obvious meaning, according to the im- 
port of the English language, as understood by honest Ameri- 
can citizens, in the latter part of the 18th, and the beginning of 
the 19th centuries. And all learned parade about the usus lo- 
qiiendi, and reigning philosophy of former ages, and all 
running to Dr. Twiss, or Dr. any-body-else, for the meaning 
of our Confession of Faith, is but casting dust into men's eyes, 
under the pretence of making them see more clearly. Any 
plain common sense Elder knows, without the help of any 
scholastic professor, thai he who is justly charged with guilt, is 
justly charged with some crime or offence — that when guilt is 
imputed to any one, he is charged with some sin — he is called 
a sinner, and treated as a sinner — that to be " utterly indisposed, 
disabled, and made opposite to all good," does not mean "full 
ability to do all that God requires." 

As I shall have to touch this subject again, I proceed to say 
that, the Presbyterian Church, under her standards as revised 
and amended, enjoyed for nearly forty years, a course of puri- 
ty, peace and prosperity, truly wonderful. Now and then the 
leaven of error was infused into some parts of the great lump, 
but by the prompt exercise of wholesome discipline, the mass 
was preserved sound, and the corrupt fermentation was ejected. 
Davis, Stone, Craighead, Ewing, and their deluded followers. 



( 8 ) 

at different periods, and for different shades of error, were cut 
off; and the wounds occasioned by their excisions, seemed al- 
most cicatrized; when, lo! to the alarm of those, who loved the 
form of sound words which they had vowed at the altar of God 
to maintain, to the grief of those who had toiled, and suffered 
reproach to preserve the purity of the church; to the amaze- 
ment of those who were folding their hands at ease in Zion — 
and to the confusion of those whose zeal had passed the bounds 
of knowledge — a latent, deep, and wide-spread scheme is dis- 
closed, having for its object the total subversion of every thing 
valuable in our system, except the name, and embracing in its 
elements every leading error which had been condemned, and 
for the propagation of which many an eloquent and ardent spir- 
it had suffered expulsion. This, sir, was the new Divinity, pro- 
pagated by the New School. Not new in its radical principles, 
not new in its deadly aim against the truth of God, not new in 
its destructive influence on the souls of men, not new in its ea- 
sy access to the heart— but new in its unexpected advocates — 
new in its explanations — new in its numbers — new in its arts 
of persuasion, neiv in its plans of operation, new in its plans of 
compromise to parry and paralyse every effort of discipline. 

For proof of all, now intimated respecting the New Divinity, 
I need only appeal to the history of the Church for the last six 
or seven years, particularly the last four. And to sustain and 
illustrate the paralysing influence of the New School, upon whole- 
some discipline; I shall only now briefly recite the history of 
the case before you. 

It is well known historically, that Dr. Beecher's intimacy 
with Dr. Taylor of New Haven, and with Mr. C. G. Finney 
of new doctrine and new measure memory, together with senti- 
ments he had published in the National Preacher, brought him 
under the suspicion that he belonged to the New School. The 
• subsequent publication of his sermon on Free Agency and De- 
pendance, and his manner of entering the Presbyterian Church 
through the 3d Presbytery of New York, placed the matter 
beyond all reasonable doubt. Considering the state of the Pres- 
byterian Church at that time, (fall of IS 32,) and especially the 
condition of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, it could not have 
been expected that Dr. Beecher's reception could have been 
cordial on the part of all the members. But he presented his 
clean papers, as they were called, from the 3d Presbytery of New 
York, — the right of examination was denied, and when I 
prepared and offered a respectful but serious protest against his 
admission, it was rejected. It is proper however to say that 
there was but little opposition made to Dr. Beecher's reception 
into the Presbytery of Cincinnati, and for several reasons — the 
opposition of a feeble minority seemed useless — some were un- 



( 9 ) 

informed as to what had transpired in New England and New 
York,-an amnesty had taken place at a meeting of the Synod in 
Chillicothe, and hopes were entertained that the churches in our 
bounds were no longer to be "disturbed with novel sentiments; 
or such expressions as were calculated to excite suspicions." — 
After Dr. Beecher had been received into the Cincinnati 
Presbytery, and some time had been spent in free fraternal con- 
versation, and solemn prayer, the following record was made; 
viz. — 

The attention of the Presbytery was called to the decision of 
the Synod of Cincinnati, respecting the difficulties existing in 
this Presbytery, and the minutes of the Synod on that subject 
were read as follows: — viz» 

The committee to whom was referred the whole business 
brought before Synod as connected with the application to divide 
the Presbytery of Cincinnati, reported. 

This report was accepted, and being amended, was adopted, 
and is as follows: — viz. 

The committee on the difficulties existing in the Presb)^tery 
of Cincinnati, present the following report, — The grounds of 
difficulty alleged by the brethren of the Cincinnati Presby- 
tery in the interlocutory were, &c." I shall now recite so much 
of this report as relates to the present subject. 

"1. Difference of opinion in doctrine. 

2. The churches were disturbed by the use of phrases and 
expressions novel and inconsistent with the standards of the 
church. 

3. Impropriety in the exercise of discipline — in the licensing 
of candidates, and the ordination of them to the Gospel Ministry. 

In view of these, the committee recommend the following in- 
junctions and advice. 

1. In relation to difference of opinion in doctrine, the Sy- 
nod, while they advise the due exercise of forbearance, enjoin 
it upon every one to endeavor to believe and speak in accor- 
dance with the standards of the church. 

2. The Synod enjoin upon the Presbytery the exercise of 
discipline upon such as disturb the churches, either with novel 
sentiments or such expressions as are calculated to excite sus- 
picions. 

3. In the exercise of discipline, licensure and ordination, 
the Synod enjoin a strict adherence to the rules presented in the 
form of Government and book of discipline, etc." 

"After the reading of the above, on motion, Resolved, That 
this Presbytery approve and acquiesce in the above decision of 
the Synod of Cincinnati, and will endeavor scrupulously to ob- 
serve the advice and injunctions contained in said decision." Min 
Pres. Vol. 1, pp. 336 — 8. 

B 



( io ) 



The Synod must not forget what was the main difficulty in 
this Presbytery, and out of which all their other difficulties grew, 
"difference of opinion in doctrine;" — "the churches were dis- 
turbed by the use of phrases and expressions novel and incon- 
sistent with the standards of the Church;" — "improprieties in 
the exercise of discipline. " All the other irregularities and col- 
lisions sprung from the one evil, new doctrines, all the new 
measures in missions, revivals and discipline, were to promote 
the new doctrines; thus the purity of the church was corrupted, 
her peace destroyed, her prosperity hindered. Of this we com- 
plained. To remedy these evils, the Synod advised and enjoin- 
ed the due exercise of discipline upon offenders, and the Pres- 
bytery pledged themselves, and made the pledge a matter of 
solemn record, " that this Presbytery approve and acquiesce in 
the decision of the Synod, and will endeavor scrupulously to 
observe the advice and injunctions contained in said decision." 

Sir, you must not forget that Dr. Beecher was a member of 
the Presbytery when this pledge was given, and gave his voice 
in its favor! Such a pledge would have been a cordial to the old 
School minority could they have believed in the sound inten- 
tion of those who gave it. But their confidence had been so 
frequently misplaced, and so often abused, that their faith was 
weak, and consolation small. Did the Presbytery, did Dr. Bee- 
cher redeem this solemn pledge? Did they confirm our faith and 
increase our joy? Did they cease to disturb the churches by 
suppressing their new doctrines and irregular discipline? — 
Did they correct the disobedient? Let facts speak in the ears of 
all candid men. They continued to deny the right of examina- 
tion, when new applicants made their appearance from doubtful 
quarters, see the cases of Messrs. Fulsom and Bullard, the for- 
mer from Newburyport, and the latter from North Suffolk As- 
sociation. ( Min. pp. 359, '61— '62. ) They put a call into the 
hands of a man who was disturbing an important section of the 
church under their care. (Mr. Pomeroy, min. p. 362.) They re- 
ceived Mr. Geo. Beecher, a licentiate from the Association of the 
Western district of New Haven, ( Min. p. 380.) and they or- 
dained him, notwithstanding eight ministers and eight ruling 
elders could not sustain his examination; having full evidence, 
from his own mouth, that he held, and consequently would 
teach very dangerous errors, ( Min. pp. 383—4. ) and his popular 
sermon was so unsound as to be sustained by a vote of 21 to 16, 
only 5 of a majority, ( Min. pp. 3S7--8. ) And they divided 
the small church of Cheviot for the express purpose of organi- 
zing a New School Church to be under the care of Mr. Blood. 
( Min. p. 396. ) 

These, sir, are some of the acts and doings of this Presbytery, in 
view of the advice and injunctions of the Synod and their own 



( 11 ) 



solemn pledge, "scrupulously 5 ' to observe them. And what was 
Dr. Beecher doing to redeem this pledge whilst the Presbytery- 
was working all this mischief? By all his ingenuity and popu- 
larity, and eloquence and votes, he was sustaining the measures 
of the majority — he was boldly preaching the new divinity — 
and poisoning the minds of thousands through the medium of 
the press; while the publications in the East and hundreds of 
tongues in the West were more than insinuating that Dr. Beecher 
was an unsound and dangerous theologian. When my protest 
was rejected, in Nov. 1S32, in view of this unhappy and ruinous 
state of our affairs, the minority of the Presbytery introduced the 
following resolution, which was rejected also, after long discus- 
sion, viz: "Whereas public fame loudly proclaims that the Rev. 
Lyman Beecher, D. D., holds and teaches doctrines at variance 
with the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, and subversive 
of the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion, Therefore, 

Resolved, that be a committee to inquire into the 

facts in this case and report at the stated meeting of this Presby- 
tery next spring." — Min. p. 353-4. 

This effort to obtain the salutary exercise of discipline having 
failed, the minority finding the tide of error setting in more 
strongly, on the 5th of April introduced the following resolution: 
"Resolved that a committee of — be appointed to examine two 
sermons of Lyman Beecher, D. D., e on the Native Character 
of man'' and a sermon 'on dependence and free agency' with 
respect to doctrine and terms, and report to this body what those 
sermons contain, if they contain any thing in doctrine or modes 
of expression, which the late injunction of Synod makes it the 
duty of this Presbytery to take cognizance of." The considera- 
tion of this resolution was postponed till the next stated meeting 
of Presbytery. — Min. p. 375. 

At the next stated meeting, September 12, the resolution was 
discussed and indefinitely postponed. — Min. p. 397. Agoinst 
these decisions a complaint was made to this Synod and tried 
in Oct, 1833. The Synod would not say that there were not 
sufficient reasons for the Presbytery to take up charges against 
Dr. Beecher; but they said "the Presbytery could be compelled 
to take up charges against him only by a responsible prosecutor." 
The whole matter was then by appeal taken to the General 
Assembly in May, 1834. It is well known that the Assembly 
of that year was one of the most reckless that ever met in Phila- 
delphia, and the appeal was cast out on the frivolous and uncon- 
stitutional pretext, that the appellant was not one of the original 
parties. This was as grievous as it was untrue and unjust. The 
original parties were the majority and the minority of the Cin. 
Presbytery, and the appellant was one of the minority. 

The doings of the General Assembly of 1834 clearly proved 



( 12 ) 



that sound doctrine and wholesome discipline were at an end in the 
Presbyterian Church, unless the body of the church, still believed 
to be sound, could be awakened to a sense of their danger. To 
arouse the whole body and put their soundness to the test, the 
Act and Testimony was prepared and published, and the con- 
vention at Pittsburgh was called. A complaint was made to 
Synod against the Presbytery of Miami for adopting the Act 
and Testimony. The trial proved that a majority of this Synod 
was then sound, and in favor of reform, for they sustained the 
Miami Presbytery and disappointed the complainants. 

Yet, sir, in the face of this decision of the Synod, what did 
the majority of the Cincinnati Presbytery do at their next stated 
meeting? Decided against their decision. See min. April, 1835„, 

Recollect, sir, the difficulties between the Old and New School 
commenced among us at Mount Carmel in October, 1829, on 
the first arrival of Absalom Peters among us — these difficulties 
were increased in 1830 and 31, by the operations of Messrs. 
Peters, Cushman, Vail, and Blanchard — they were augmented 
by the arrival and operations of Mr. Mahan, and multiplied 
greatly by the refusal of the minority in the Cincinnati Conven- 
tion to acquiesce in the decisions of the majority of that body — « 
and by publications and prosecutions of various kinds the 
difficulties became more numerous and more complicated and 
more afflicting, till in October, 1832, they were all apparently 
quashed by a compromise. In this plan of oblivion the advice 
and injunctions of the Synod were contained, which the Presby- 
tery, Dr. Beecher among the rest, pledged themselves scrupu-^. 
lously to observe. This pledge was not redeemed. New 
doctrines and new measures were preached and practised with 
new zeal and diligence, and every effort made to bring the Old, 
School to nought. Hence arose the rejected protest, November, 
1832, — the rejected resolution for charges on common fame, 
Jan., 1833,— the rejected resolution for a committee to examine 
sermons in April, 1833, — the decision of Synod respecting a 
competent prosecutor, Oct., 1833, — the rejection of the appeal 
by the General Assembly, May, 1834. 

During all these difficulties, for nearly five years, they, the 
New School brethren, were calling upon us to bring charges. 
"Away with your suspicions — give up your claim to the right 
of examination — cease your publications to the churches — bring 
your charges — stake character against character— then see what 
we will do." The very existence of the causes of complaint was 
denied, and the assurance given that if any man taught one single 
doctrine named in the Act and Testimony — nay more — if any 
one used terms or phrases which disturbed the peace of the 
Church, they would exercise discipline upon him. Well, at 
length, charges are tabled in Nov., 1834; and what is done at 



( 13 ) 



the first meeting? The discipline is disregarded and the charges 
laid on the table for five months. What does the dis- 
cipline say? "When complaint is laid before the Presbytery, it 
must be reduced to writing; and nothing further shall be done 
at the first meeting, (unless by the consent of parties,) than giving 
the minister a full copy of the charges, with the names of the 
witnesses annexed; and citing all parties and their witnesses to 
appear, and be heard at the next meeting, &c." — Discipline 
Ch. v. sec. viii. 

Did they do this? Did they inquire of the parties? &c. — No. 
They placed the charges at length on record, and said they laid 
them on the table till, &c, thus contriving by delay to make the 
first meeting no meeting at all, and the second meeting the first. 

What at next meeting? — postponed two months more, till 
after the meetings of the Convention and General Assembly. 
All this time the leaven is increasing its fermentation — they will 
have the whole lump corrupted if possible. 

I shall now proceed to point out some of the irregularities in the 
proceedings of the Presbytery, which are just grounds of appeal. 
(See Dis. ch. vii. sec. ii., sub. sec. iii.) These irregularities em- 
brace and sustain my first complaint against the Presbytery, 
namely, that the}' are justly chargeable with neglect of duty. 
You will find on their minutes the following record : — "Reading, 
Nov. 11, 1834. Dr. Wilson presented to Presbytery the follow- 
ing paper, containing sundry charges against Dr. Beecher, viz: 
To the Moderator, &c." — Under that date the charges were 
placed on record. The parties were then present. The recep- 
tion and the recording of the charges evidently contained two 
admissions, — first, that the matters of accusation involved "evils 
which discipline is intended to prevent." — (dis. ch. i. sec. iv.,) 
and second, that the individual who appeared as the accuser, and 
undertook to substantiate the charges" was a competent prose- 
cutor. This then was the commencement of the process against 
Dr. Beecher. A person had made out the charges, — (dis. ch. v. 
sec. v.) The complaint was reduced to writing. — (dis. ch. viii.) 
What then was the duty of the Presbytery before they received 
and recorded the complaint? The book of discipline says, 
"the prosecutor of a minister shall be previously warned that if 
he fail &c." — (dis. ch. v. sec. vii.) Did they discharge this duty? 
Did they give any previous warning? If so, let them shew it from 
their record. If not, let them shew from their record why they 
neglected this duty — for they cannot be permitted now to assign 
reasons which are not on record. — (dis. ch. iv. sec. xxiii.) Here 
was a neglect of duty. The prosecutor was not previously 
warned as the rule requires. But further, this was evidently 
the first meeting. The charges were received and made matter 
of record, in extenso — the parties were present — and the Pres- 



( 14 ) 



bytery was bound to inquire how far they could proceed at that 
meeting, by "consent of parties." — (dis. ch. v. sec. viii.) If 
nothing could be done by consent at the first meeting — what 
then? They were bound to give the accused" a full copy of the 
charges, with the names of witnesses annexed, and to cite all 
parties and their witnesses to appear and be heard at the next 
meeting, &c." (Ib.) Did they perform these duties? Let their 
record answer. They did none of these things. The next day, 
Nov. 12, they made the following record. "A motion was 
made and seconded to take up the charges of Dr. Wilson against 
Dr. Beecher, and after some discussion, it was, on motion, 
resolved, that the consideration of the whole subject be postponed 
till the next stated meeting of Presbytery." And you see no 
more of this business on their records till April 10, 1835. Here 
were grave charges specifying "evils which discipline is intended 
to prevent' 7 — charges which ought not to have been "received 
on slight grounds" — charges specifying notorious offences, the 
injurious effects of which no private steps could obviate — charges 
which required the immediate cognizance of a church judicatory 
— charges preferred against a bishop, before his Presbytery, who 
were bound for the honor and success of the gospel, with the 
greatest care and impartiality to watch over the personal and 
professional conduct of all their members — these charges received 
and recorded, and then the rules and duties prescribed to the 
court by the laws of discipline disregarded and the consideration 
of the whole subject postponed for five months! And all this 
without assigning any reason! (Dis. ch. iv. sec. xxiii.) 

Those who framed and all who have honestly adopted the 
standards of our Church have acted upon the reasonable suppo- 
sition, that a Court of Christ acting under the most solemn 
responsibilities, would take the earliest opportunity consistently 
with the rights of an accused person, to bring a matter of this 
kind to issue, and wipe away reproach from the Church, or 
restore confidence among brethren. But here is a court that 
received charges of a serious nature — the decision of which was 
deeply interesting to individuals, and particularly interwoven 
with the purity, peace and prosperity of the Church of God, and 
without regarding the rules of discipline, without consulting the 
parties, without assigning a solitary reason for a needless, pain- 
ful and, apparently, wanton delay of just administration, gravely 
resolved to postpone the whole subject for five months! 

But what then took place? At the next meeting when "the 
parties" (says the dis. ch. iv. sec. v., com. with ch. v. sec. viii.) 
"should be fully heard and the matter decided," the following 
questions are raised. Shall these charges be put into the hands 
of the accused? Is the prosecutor competent to institute a pro- 



( 15 ) 



cess? Will the accused consent to be tried on these charges? 
Please to hear their record. 

" Cincinnati, April 10, 1835. The order of the day was post- 
poned to take up the charges against Lyman Beecher, D. D. 
preferred by J. L. Wilson. 

On the motion that a copy of the charges be put into the hands 
of the accused, Dr. Beecher, at considerable length, and by refe- 
rence to numerous documents, shewed, that, in his opinion, Dr. 
Wilson was ecclesiastically incompetent to institute or conduct 
a prosecution against him; but in conclusion expressed his will- 
ingness to go to trial, and then submitted it to the Presbytery." 

What could be intended by such a record? Did they intend 
to say that this was the first meeting? Did they mean that 
Dr. B. had proved me incompetent to institute and conduct a 
process against him? and that he went to trial gratuitously? 
All these things are implied in the record, and yet none of them 
are true. Can any one believe that Dr. Beecher was willing to 
go to trial, after the strong and repeated efforts he had made to 
resist discipline in all other legal forms? Can any one believe 
that the Presbytery was disposed to try him on the charges be- 
fore them? True, indeed, after they heard my reply to Dr. B's. 
laboured argument and "numerous documents," they put the 
charges into his hands! But why? Because they saw there 
was no way of escape. Yet they delayed, and framed their 
minute, so as, to cast upon me an unmerited slur. Yea more, to 
exhibit Dr. Beecher as amiable and condescending in submitting 
the matter to the Presbytery. 

But, sir, what did he submit to Presbytery? W 7 as it my 
competency to prefer charges against him? No. Was it his 
own willingness to be tried on the charges? No. What did he 
submit to Presbytery? Nothing. Is it not manifest to every man 
of common sense, that the Presbytery, taking such a course as 
this and making such a record was partial to the accused, 
prejudiced against the accuser and wholly incompetent to 
render a just decision? 

But what hindered the trial from going on? Dr. Beecher said 
he was willing to go to trial — the charges were put into his hands 
— he conceded every fact, that I cared about proving — this was 
the second meeting! Did they proceed with the trial as the 
discipline required? Not at all. Without a single reason for 
so doing, they ordered their clerk to cite the witnesses; they 
gravely warned the prosecutor; they solemnly reminded the 
Court of their high responsibility, as a Court of Jesus Christ: 
and then adjourned for two months! ! 

The 2d Tuesday in June was fixed for the trial. Were the 
parties cited to attend, at this third meeting? No. Were any 
witnesses cited? No. Why not u l understood," (says the 



( 16 ) 



clerk, under oath,) "that the citation of witnesses was dispensed 
with by agreement of the parties, and the same was understood 
by brethren with whom I conversed after the meeting." 

In the first reason of my appeal I have charged the Presby- 
tery with neglect of duty; and these irregularities fully prove 
this charge. And further they prove that this neglect of duty 
was the result of partiality to the accused and deep prejudice 
against the prosecutor. And in my second reason for appeal, 
I have charged them with making an ambiguous record, unkind 
and unjust to me. This, I think, has been made clear to the 
weakest capacity. 

I come now to review the proceedings at the third meeting, 
held in June, 1835. And here I will call your attention to my 
third and fourth, reasons for appealing to the Synod — the intro- 
duction of irrelevant matter and irrelevant testimony, some of 
which is on record and some is omitted, namely the amount of 
ecclesiastical capital imported by Dr. Beecher from New Eng- 
land;* Dr. Green's favorable notice of Dr. Beecher's sermon 
on "The faith once delivered to the saints;" a letter signed by 
Mr. Vail on behalf of a committee of which I was chairman — 
testimony to prove what Perfectionists believe; all tended to 
waste time, perplex the prosecutor, embarrass the cause, and 
turn away the Court from the real points at issue, and all 
evidently for popular effect. Could any thing but strong par- 
ti'ility to the accused have led the Court to suffer him thus to 
ramble? Their partiality was evinced in another form. I 
offered important information, given by Dr. Philips on a point at 
issue, which was rejected; but when Dr. B. offered information 
on a point not included in the cause, from Drs. Green and Mil- 



*The Rev. Professor Stowe, F. Y. Vail and Artemas Bullard were called upon 
by Dr. Beecher to give evidence before the Presbytery, respecting the amount of 
ecclesiastical character he had exported from N. England. 

The amount of tbeir testimony was that Dr. Beecher's character as a theologian 
stood uncommonly high among the orthodox in New England, and was increasing 
rather than diminishing, when he left the East and came to the West, (see Beech- 
er's trial, p. 25, N. Y. Edition.) It was hard to believe this testimony, when it was 
given, because it contradicted both public and private information. 

But now, in 1837, before the lapse of two years, it appears from Dr. Porter's letters 
and the uncontradicted statements in the "Hartford Watchman" that this testimony 
is not to be relied on. The Watchman in repeating Dr. Porter's words to Dr. 
Beecher — "You should speak for yourself only" — remarks: "For the information 
of those at a distance, it may be proper to say, that all the orthodox ministers in N. 
England, would probably unite with Dr. Porter in this rebuke. The fact is, and 
it will be known in due time, that Dr. Beecher ceased to have the confidence of all 
his brethren, as a sound and consistent divine, before he left New England. Dr. 
Porter may be considered as expressing the views and feelings of the orthodox in 
New England generally." Hart. Watch., Jan. 14, 1837. 

And how could it be otherwise, when, as Dr. Porter justly remarks in another 
letter, that, Dr. Beecher was trying to make Calvinism walk on one leg. On this 
subject the Watchman promises further disclosures if Dr. Beecher requires them. 



( 17 ) 



ler, it was admitted - ! Was this justice, or was it both irregular 
and partial? The letter of Dr. Phillips was recent and relevant; 
the others related to matters in 1828, and on subjects not in 
debate. 

I was also prevented from reading an article from a news- 
paper, conducted by responsible publishers, which I intro- 
duced to rebut some of Dr. B.'s informal and irrelevant matter. 
Was not this partiality towards the accused? and injustice to the 
prosecutor? With these facts I connect the facts specified in mjr 
11, 12, 13, and 14 reasons for appeal. 

Before I proceed to examine the charges permit me, if possi- 
ble, to remove a strong prejudice which has been excited in 
favor of Dr. B. as an accused person, and against me as his 
accuser. It has been proclaimed and published from one end of 
the land to the other, that Dr. Beecher has been tried on a charge 
of heresy. Now look through the whole of the charges and you 
will see that this is utterly false. 

All the noise and smoke and dust raised by the cry of heresy 
has been raised by Dr. B. and his friends, to excite popular 
sympathy for him, and cast odium upon me. 

It has been the policy of the New School whenever complaint 
has been made about errors in the Church, to raise the cry of 
heresy. And an honest, conscientious prosecutor is to be cried 
down as a "heresy -hunter." 

The comburendo hereiico — the fires of Smithfield— the flames 
and painted devils of the "Auto da Fe," have been kindled up 
and depicted before every imagination: all for popular effect. 

In my charges I have not used the word heresy. It was 
^enough for me to state the false doctrines of which I complained 
and leave the court to judge whether they were tolerated opin- 
ions, or heresy, or "damnable heresy;" whether they were dan- 
gerous errors which strike at the vitals of religion, are industri- 
ously spread, and infer deposition or suspension. 

But there are errors of a minor character, that do not amount to 
heresy; are they to be let alone? The discipline says, No. The 
Presbytery must exercise discipline to amend the offender and 
remove the offence. This Synod have decided that a man shall 
be disciplined if he disturb the church by doubtful words. And 
when words and phrases are specified under a charge of preach- 
ing contrary to the standards of the Church, is the Church to be 
dissolved in tears, and the world to be shocked, and a complain- 
ant put down by the cry of heresy, which the accused raises 
around his own ears? Suppose a man should preach that the civil 
magistrate ought to exercise power in matters of religion or that 
immersion is the proper mode of baptism, or that the ordination 
of a minister is by the Bishop and not by the Presbytery; of 
suppose he should preach against a learned ministry or the doc- 



( is ) 



trine of election. Would he be tolerated in the Presbyterian 
Church ? The time has been when he would not. Would he 
be denounced as a heretic? No. 

In examining the charges, however, you will find something 
worse than all this. Yet I have not cried heresy; but left the 
Court to decide. (See dis. ch. v. sec. 13, 14, 15.) These rules the 
Presbytery disregarded. An additional proof of their neglect 
of duty and another reason for my appeal. 

I proceed now to examine the charges, and the evidence by 
which they are sustained. 

What has been conceded? 

1. Dr. B. conceded that he was the author of the sermons 
brought as evidence to sustain the charges. 

2. That he had also preached the same doctrines contained in 
these sermons in the Second Presbyterian Church in Cincin- 
nati, and, 

3. That the sermon on Dependence and free agency was 
preached at the time he was about to enter the Presbyterian 
Church, in prospect of becoming the pastor of the second Presby- 
terian Church in Cincinnati, and also teacher of theology in Lane 
Seminary. Having made these concessions he put in the plea 
of not guilty. On what point then were we at issue before the 
Court? Not on the matters of fact, but on the matter of offence. 
"I have," says Dr. B. "published and preached as has been al- 
leged, in the charges, but I have committed no crime in so doing; 
I plead not guilty, viz: — I plead justification." 

Now, sir, let us examine the charges and the evidence. This 
is no difficult task, as I have no evidence, but what is contained 
in Dr. Beecher's sermons and concessions, and my quotations 
are acknowledged to be correct. 

I. I charge Dr. Beecher with propagating doctrines contrary 
to the word of God, and the Standards of the Presbyterian 
Church on the subject of the depraved nature of man. 

Specifications. The Scriptures and our Standards teach on 
the subject of a depraved nature, 

1st. That a corrupted nature is conveyed to all the posterity 
of Adam descending from him by ordinary generation. 

2d. That from original corruption all actual transgressions 
proceed. 

3d. That all the natural descendants of Adam are conceived 
and born in sin. 

4th. That original sin binds the descendants of Adam over to 
the wrath of God. 

5th. That the fall of Adam brought upon mankind the loss of 
communion with God, so as we are by nature children of wrath 
and bound slaves to Satan. 

In opposition to this Dr. Beecher teaches, 



( 19 ) 



1st. That the depravity of man is voluntary. 

2d. That neither a depraved nor holy nature are possible 
without understanding, conscience, and choice. 

3d. That a depraved nature cannot exist without voluntary 
agency. 

4th. That whatever may be the early constitution of man 
there is nothing in it and nothing withheld from it, which renders 
disobedience unavoidable. 

5th. That the first sin in every man is free, and might have 
been and ous;ht to have been avoided. 

6th. That if man is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary na- 
ture that is depraved. 

7th. That this is according to the Bible. "They go astray as 
soon as they be born" — that is in early life; how early, so as to 
deserve punishment, God only knows. ~ 

According to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, our 
first parents sinned in eating the forbidden fruit — by this sin 
they became wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body, 
and became dead in sin. They being the root of all mankind, 
the guilt of this sin was imputed to all their posterity — and the 
same death in sin and corrupt nature conveyed; from this origi- 
nal sin do proceed actual transgressions; original sin brings guilt 
and binds over to the wrath of God; original sin makes the pos- 
terity of Adam by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to 
satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world and that 
which is to come. 

We are led here to contemplate our first parents as the root of 
all mankind, all mankind as the branches springing from this root. 
The root is dead to all good, and wholly corrupt in all faculties 
and parts; from this corruption the branches are utterly disabled 
and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil — a 
corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Why? Because the 
fruit grows on the' branches and the branches are as corrupt as 
the root. But Dr. Beecher says, this is all a mistake. " Foun- 
tains may be polluted and pour forth unwholesome streams; trees 
may be corrupt and produce deadly fruit; animals may be veno- 
mous and propagate their kind; but all these are irrational. Man 
cannot be so depraved, because his nature includes choice: all 
sin in him Is voluntary; neither a holy nor depraved nature are 
possible without understanding, conscience and choice; a deprav- 
ed nature can no more exist without voluntary agency than a 
material nature can exist without solidity; the first sin in every 
man is free, and might have been avoided — whatever effect the 
fall of man may have had on his race, there is nothing in it, and 
nothing withheld from it, which renders disobedience unavoida- 
ble — "They go astray as soon as they be born" — that is in early 
life -how early, so as to deserve punishment, God only knows." 



( 20 ) 



Here, sir, Dr. B. and the standards of our church are the- 
very antipodes of each other. According to Dr. Beecher we 
are under a mistake. He has undertaken to correct us. Is the 
mistake and the correction the same? Does the language agree? 
Do the propositions agree? Can any possible explanations make 
them agree? How then has Dr. Beecher attempted to escape 
from the force of the charge, and the relevancy of the evidence? 

1. He attempts to escape by mis stating the charge. He says, 
* it seems that I am charged with teaching that infants when 
born, are as pure as the angels before God's throne. If this be 
the charge, the proof is irrelevant. My sermon teaches no such 
thing. " 

Now, sir, was it honest for Dr. Beecher thus to mis-state 
the charge and then deny the relevancy of the proof? The 
charge is not that he teaches infants are pure, — but that they 
are neither holy -nor unholy, neither good nor bad, and the 
proof goes to that point fully. 

2. He attempts to escape by a more reckless assertion. He 
affirms that "his whole discourse on the native character of 
man, has respect to adult man and to adult man only, original 
sin, I did not touch it." The very title of the sermon contra- 
dicts these assertions. "Native!"" what is "native}" Is it not 
original} — produced by nature— something born with us— 
conferred by birth} What is it to be by nature "children of 
wrath?" And was Paul speaking of "adult man onlyV r 

The whole passage to which I have referred in the sermon con^ 
tradicts Dr. Beecher's assertion. Let every one hear and judge. 

if A depraved nature is by many understood to mean a nature 
excluding choice, and producing sin by an unavoidable necessi-. 
ty; as fountains of water pour forth their streams, or trees pro- 
duce fruit, or animals propagate their kind. The mistake lies, 
in supposing that the nature of matter and mind are the same; 
whereas, they are entirely different. The nature of matter ex- 
cludes perception, understandings and choice;, but the nature of 
mind includes them all. Neither a holy nor a depraved nature 
are possible, without understanding, conscience, and choice.— 
To say of an accountable creature, that he is depraved by na- 
ture, is only to say, that, rendered capable by his Maker of obe-, 
dience, he disobeys from the commencement of his accountabil- 
ity. To us it does not belong to say ivhen accountability com- 
mences, and to what extent it exists in the early stages of life. 
This is the prerogative of the Almighty. Doubtless there is a 
time when man becomes accountable, and the law of God obliga- 
tory; and what we have proved is, that whenever the time ar- 
rives that it becomes the duty of man to love God more than the 
creature, he does in fact love the creature more than God, does 
most freely, and. most wickedly set his affections on things be- 



( 21 ) 



low, and refuse to set them on things above, and that his de- 
pravity consists in this state of the affections. For this univer- 
sal concurrence of man in preferring the creature to the Creator, 
there is doubtless some cause or reason; but it cannot be a cause 
of which disobedience is an involuntary and unavoidable result. 
Ability to obey, is indispensable to moral obligation; and the 
moment any cause should render love to God impossible, that 
moment the obligation to love, would cease, and man could no 
more have a depraved nature, than any other animal. A de- 
praved nature can no more exist without voluntary agency, and 
accountability, than a material nature can exist without solidity 
and extension. Whatever effect therefore, the fall of man may 
have had on his race, it has not had the effect to render it im- 
possible for man to love God religiously, and whatever may be 
the early constitution of man, there is nothing in it, and noth- 
ing withheld from it which renders disobedience unavoidable, 
and obedience impossible. The first sin in every man is free, 
and might have been, and ought to have been, avoided. At the 
time, whenever it is, that it first becomes the duty of man to 
be religious, he refuses, and refuses in the possession of such fac- 
ulties as render religion a reasonable service, and him inexcusa- 
ble, and justly punishable. The supreme love of the world is a 
matter of choice, formed under such circumstances, as that man 
might have chosen otherwise, and ought to have chosen other- 
wise, and is therefore exposed to punishment for this, his volun- 
tary and inexcusable disobedience. If, therefore, man is de- 
praved by nature, it is a voluntary and accountable nature which 
is depraved, exercised in disobedience to the law of God. This 
is according to the Bible — i They have all gone aside,' — each 
man has been voluntary and active in his transgression. 6 They 
go astray as soon as they be born;' that is, in early life:— how 
early, so as to deserve punishment, God only knows. ' The 
fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' Every imagina- 
tion or exercise of man's heart is evil. Native depravity, 

THEN, IS A STATE OP THE AFFECTIONS, IN A VOLUNTARY AC- 
COUNTABLE CREATURE, AT VARIANCE WITH DIVINE REQUIRE- 
MENT FROM THE BEGINNING OF ACCOUNTABILITY." 

What, sir, is all this about fountains and trees and animals, 
pouring forth, producing, propagating, — what all this about a 
holy or depraved nature, the commencement of accountability, 
the early stages of life, the fall of man, the early constitution of 
man, and the perversion of the scripture, "they go astray, as 
soon as they be born," if "original sin was not touched," if 
"the whole discourse had respect to adult man, and adult man 
only?" 

3. He attempts to escape by the doctrine of 'social liabilities.' 
But, unhappily for him, this doctrine stands opposed to his 



( 29 ) 



whole theory. According to the doctrine of social liabilities, 
like produces its like, — a corrupt nature is inherited, and sin, 
with its effects, comes down upon us^ as political evils come 
upon nations — not as crimes, but as calamities. This is esca- 
ping out of one snare, by running into another! 

4. To make some appearance of orthodoxy, he attempts to 
escape by asserting as follows, — a In consequence of our alliance 
with Adam and his fall, there is some ground or occasion for 
the certainty of actual sin in all his posterity. This ground is 
some change in the nature of man anterior to moral agency."— 
When Dr. Beecher uttered this sentence before the Presbytery, 
I put to him this question, — "Do you admit that it was by the 
imputation of Adam's first sin, and its propagation by ordinary 
generation?" 

*ftns. "I don't deny it, and you can't make me a heretic for 
what I don't pretend to affirm or deny." 

And is the man who does not "pretend to affirm" the doctrine 
of imputation nor the conveyance of a corrupt nature by ordi- 
nary generation, in good faith, a Presbyterian minister? You 
all answer no. So the Presbytery ought to have answered: so 
a respectable minority did answer, and answered truly. 

My second charge includes two subjects— total depravity, and 
the work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. I wish the 
Synod to view them separately. 

II. I charge Doctor Beecher with propagating doctrines con- 
trary to the word of God, and the standards of the Presbyteri- 
an Church, on the subjects of total depravity and the work of 
the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. 

Specifications. The Scriptures and our standards teach on the 
subject of total depravity — 

1st. That by the sin of our first parents, all their natural de- 
scendants are dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties 
and parts of soul and body. 

2d. That by this original corruption they are utterly disabled 
and made opposite to all good. 

3d. That a natural man being dead in sin, is not able, by his 
own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto. 

4th. That no man is able, either of himself, or by any grace 
received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of 
God. 

In opposition to this, Dr. Beecher teaches: — 

1st. That man is rendered capable by his Maker of obedience. 

2d. That ability to obey is indispensable to moral obligation, 

3d. That where there is a want of ability to love God, obliga- 
tion to love ceases, whatever may be the cause. 

4th. That the sinner is able to do what God commands, and 
which being done would save the soul 



(23 ) 



5th. That to be able and unwilling to obey God is the only 
possible way in which a free agent can become deserving of 
condemnation and punishment. 

6th. That there is no position which unites more universally 
and entirely the suffrages of the whole human race than the ne- 
cessity of a capacity for obedience to the existence of obligation 
and desert of punishment. 

7th. That no obligation can be created, without a capacity 
commensurate with the demand. 

8th. That ability commensurate with requirement, is the 
equitable foundation of the moral government of God. 

9th. That this has been the received doctrine of the orthodox 
church in all ages. 

By total depravity I mean the utter inability of fallen man to 
recover himself or do that which is spiritually good, to convert 
himself to God or prepare himself for conversion. And here I 
will contrast the teaching of Dr. Beecher with the instructions 
contained in our standards on this subject. In our Confession of 
Faith, and Catechisms we find the following sentiments advan- 
ced. " By eating the forbidden fruit man became dead in sin, 
and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, 
by this original corruption, we, ( his posterity, ) are utterly in- 
disposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly 
inclined to all evil, a natural man being altogether averse from 
that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own 
strength to convert himself, or prepare himself thereunto, — no 
man is able either of himself, or by grace received in this life, 
to keep the commandments of God. We pray that God would 
make us able and willing to obey him. When God converts a 
sinner, he enables him to will and do that which is spiritually 
good — the ability of believers to do good works is not at all of 
themselves but wholly from the spirit of Christ. " 

Now see the contrast in Dr. B.'s teaching, — " To say of an ac- 
countable creature that he is depraved by nature is only to say 
that rendered capable by his Maker of obedience he disobeys 
from the commencement of his accountability. 

Ability to obey is indispensable to moral obligation ; and the 
moment that any cause should render love to God impossible, 
that moment the obligation to love would cease, and man could 
no more have a depraved nature than any other animal. 

The sinner is able to do what God commands, and which be- 
ing done would save his soul: to be able and only unwilling to 
obey God, is the only possible way in which a free agent can 
become deserving of condemnation and punishment. 

Ability commensurate with requirement is the equitable and 
everlasting foundation of the moral government of God. 

When the Holy Spirit comes to search out what is amiss, and 



(24) 

put in order that which is out of the way, what impediment to 
obedience does he find to be removed, and what work does he 
perform? He finds only the will perverted, and in the day of 
his power all he accomplishes is to make the sinner willing,—- 
natural ability and free agency are the grounds of obligation and 
guilt." 

How striking this contrast! Can it be denied that Dr* 
Beecher was ignorant of the doctrines of our church or intended 
to contradict them ? Before I pass to the 2d part of this charge, I 
will beg your attention to a brief history of the origin and pro- 
gress of the distinction between natural and moral ability and 
inability. 

It was customary formerly, for Calvinistic preachers to insist 
much on the helpless condition of unconverted men. They 
were represented as utterly unable to put forth one act of spirit- 
ual life, to convert themselves, or even prepare themselves for 
conversion. 

This true representation was often given without giving suf- 
ficient prominence to the fact of man's being a free agent, and 
justly subject to condemnation and punishment — hence the doc- 
trine of total inability was perverted, and men said they were 
not to blame — that they were excusable for not doing what they 
had no power to perform. 

To answer the sinner's objections, and take away his ex- 
cuse, some good men borrowed aid from the Arminian scheme 
and taught that if the sinner would do what he could, God would 
assist his endeavors. 

But some serious persons would allege that they had done 
all they could — prayed, read, heard, a long time, and yet had re- 
ceived no communications of saving grace : such were exhorted 
to wait God's time. 

To get out of these difficulties — to convince the impenitent 
sinner that he was inexcusable for living in sin, and the convic- 
ted sinner that now was God's time, and that he was in- 
creasing his sins by delay, the distinction of human ability into 
natural and moral, was invented. 

Those who adopted this distinction, meant by natural ability, 
merely the possession of physical pow r ers, and opportunities for 
their employment in the service of God. 

By moral ability, they meant a mind or heart rightly disposed 
to the service of God. They preached that man had natural a- 
bility to obey God; — physical powers and opportunities to be 
improved and employed in God's service, and if they were not 
thus employed they would be employed in the service of Satan 
and the world — and they also taught that the sinner labored 
under a moral inability to obey God which consisted in corrupt 
dispositions of heart, which could not be plead as excuses for 



( 25 ) 



disobedience; for in proportion as the sinner was corrupt and 
disobsdient, in the same degree he was guilty. 

But this distinction did not takeaway the sinner's excuse, nor 
the inquirer's delay. The one plead that his corrupt dispositions 
of heart were innate, born with him, and he could not eradi- 
cate them — the other plead that he had done all he could by 
his own strength, and was not converted. This distinction 
left out of view two important facts, 1st, That man by the fall 
is utterly defiled in all the faculties of his body as well as his 
soul. 2d. That without faith it is impossible for fallen man to 
come to God — to please God, or do any thing spiritually good. 
It is remarkable that this distinction is seldom referred to, or 
brought into view by old Calvinistic authors — Dr. Twiss was, 
probably, the first among English theologians. How, Watts, 
Witherspoon, Edwards, Fuller, and others, followed. 

But the distinction failed to answer the ends proposed. The 
disciples of Edwards went a step farther. By natural ability, 
they meant not only physical powers arid opportunities, but all 
the faculties of the mind, except the will, perception, understan- 
ding, memory, and judgment — nothing was wrong but the wilt* 

By the fall, man lost all ability of will to what is spiritually 
good, and hence they maintained that to be utterly indisposed 
and disabled meant the same thing. Thus they separated en- 
tirely the intellect from the will, and maintained that, in the op- 
erations of the intellect there is neither virtue nor vice — that all 
sin lies in the will, and consists in voluntary acts. Hence, in 
regeneration there is no illumination of the understanding 
by the Holy Spirit; this is altogether unnecessary, as there is 
nothing amiss but a perverted will, and the will controls the af- 
fections. In making the sinner willing, there is no direct agency 
of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but the will is brought back to 
its proper balance by the presentation of truth to the understanding 
whieh is always able to discern the things of the Spirit of God. 

But if the will were a moral power, then every volition would 
be of a moral nature and then brutes would be moral beings, for 
they possess will or the power of choice, and like all sentient 
beings, they make choice of happiness in preference to misery. 
But to escape from this, and other difficulties attending this dis- 
tinction, some went a step farther and made the will of man to 
possess two kinds of power, natural and moral. The natural 
power of the will is the power of choosing both ways at the 
same time, in all matters of choice; that is, when the will makes 
a choice, it has always the natural power to make the opposite 
choice. But the moral power of the will was struck out of bal- 
ance by the jolt of the fall, and hence moral inability is unwil- 
lingness to obey God. 

Man has the natural ability of will to choose right, and obey 

D 



( 26 ) 



God, but he has no moral ability of will,?, e. he is unwilling to 
choose right, and obey God. (This is Dr. Beecher's ground 
taken in his defence as has been shown.) 

I do not say that any body can understand this — but I say 
it is obviously wrong to speak of two kinds of ability, both of 
which are requisite to accomplish the same thing. If both arc 
requisite to accomplish the same object, then most evidently 
one by itself, is not sufficient; one alone, is not full ability. If 
the power of a man united with a mechanical power, are both 
necessary to raise a certain weight — it is obviously absurd to 
say that the man has full ability to lift the weight without the 
machine— so if natural and moral ability are both necessary 
to the service of God, define them as you may, it is absurd and 
calculated to deceive, to affirm that obedience to God can be 
performed by one kind of ability alone. If natural ability is 
plenary powers to do all that God requires — if natural ability 
be full ability to comply with the terms of salvation, then mor- 
al ability is not needed to do the same thing. But if both be 
requisite and one of them be lacking, then the sinner is utterly 
impotent, unable to accomplish the work — and his excuse for 
disobedience is not taken away by this perplexing and absurd 
theory. — Hence some have gone a step farther in the new divini- 
ty, and assert the sinner's adequate power to make himself a new 
heart, and call upon him to do the thing at once, on pain of 
damnation. These men preach that man is in possession of ev- 
ery ability which is requisite to the discharge of his duty. — 
They assert that it is as easy to love God as to hate him, as easy 
to believe, as to disbelieve, to repent as to walk, or eat, or do any 
thing else we will to do. Nothing is more in a man's power, 
than his own will, and when a sinner wills to love God, the thing 
is done, his heart is changed. 

t stop not to inquire into the effects of such preaching. But 
if Twiss and Witherspoon and others could be among us, they 
would no doubt weep to behold the distractions which have re- 
sulted from their useless and absurd distinctions; although, as 
they taught them, they were comparatively harmless. 

In view of this brief history of the progress of error, I will 
ask whether, when a man wills any particular thing, he has the 
power to will the contrary? Can a man will, at the same time, oppo- 
site things? If he determine to do an act, can he at the same time 
determine to let it alone? Now I say the very nature of volition 
is to will that which is most agreeable to the present state of the 
heart. To suppose any constraint, is absurd; for then it would 
not be volition, but constraint. The greatest conceivable liberty 
is to will according to our inclinations; i. e., to will as we please. 
If we were capable of two opposite volitions at the same time, 
it would be a self-determining power which -would render us 



( 27 ) 



incapable of being governed by moral law. Many men, for fear 
of the doctrine of necessity, have talked and reasoned most 
absurdly on this subject. 

But I inquire further, has any man the power of changing his 
affections by volition? Can you love a person whom you hate, 
by willing to love him? Let any man make the experiment, 
and he will find himself utterly impotent. What power, then, 
has the sinner to change his own heart? He does not love God, 
but is at enmity against him. How can he change his enmity 
into love? If the heart be renewed — put into that state in 
which the character of God appears lovely — then the enmity is 
taken away, and the man loves God. But this is not done by 
the sinner's volition, but by the d'rect agency of the Holy 
Ghost. Those, then, who are preaching that men in an uncon- 
verted state have ability to love God supremely, are preaching 
a doctrine at war with every man's experience, and directly op- 
posed to the word of God. Has not the renewed man as much 
ability as the unconverted man has? Has he not as much ability 
to be instantly perfect in holiness, as the unregenerate man has 
to change his enmity into love? Let the man, then, who 
preaches human ability to do all that God requires, set the exam- 
ple, and become perfectly holy, by willing to be so; and I will 
consent that he preach his doctrine till the day of judgment. 

But we are told that ability is commensurate with obligation 
— that where ability ends, obligation ends. 

To prove the untruth of these assertions, we have only to 
take the case of an impenitent sinner. 

His enmity to God and aversion to his law are deep and in- 
veterate — he has neither ability nor will to change the temper 
of his mind. Is he therefore innocent? Is he under no obliga- 
tion to love and obey God? The nature of moral evil does not 
consist in that only which can be changed at will; but the deeper 
the enmity, the greater the sinfulness, and the more justly is the 
sinner exposed to punishment. The new doctrine of human 
ability, then, is false and dangerous; for men who are forsaken 
of God, and given over to believe a lie and be damned— men 
who have committed the unpardonable sin and can never be re- 
newed to repentance, are surely unable to love and obey God, and 
yet they are under obligation to do both, are exceedingly guilty 
in God's sight, and will remain justly under his wrath and 
curse forever. That the depravity attendant upon sin, should 
release the sinner from obligation to obedience, is a maxim false, 
absurd and dangerous. 

All that is necessary on the second part of this second charge 
— namely, on the work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling — 
is to present the specifications and leave them to the judgment 
of the court 



( 28 ) 



1st. That fallen man is utterly disabled, and wholly denied 
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, and made opposite 
to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, by original cor- 
ruption. 

2nd. That from this original corruption do proceed all actual 
transgressions. 

3rd. That effectual calling is of God's free and special grace, 
and a work of God's Spirit — that men are altogether passive 
therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, 
they are thereby enabled to answer this call. 

4th. That having a new heart and a new spirit created in 
them, they are sanctified and enabled to believe. 

5th. That justifying faith is wrought in the heart of a sinner 
by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he is convinced of his 
disability to recover himself. 

In opposition to this, Doctor Beecher teaches: 

1st. That man, in his present state, is able and only unwil- 
ling to do what God commands, and which, being done would 
save the soul. 

2nd. That the more clearly the light of conviction shines, 
the more distinct is a sinner's perception that he is not destitute 
of capacity (that is, of ability) to obey God. 

3rd. That when the Holy Ghost comes to search out what is 
amiss and put in order that which is out of the way, he finds no 
impediment to obedience to be removed, but only a perverted 
will; and all he accomplishes in the day of his power, is to 
make the sinner willing to submit to God. 

4th. That good men have supposed that they augment the 
evil of sin and the justice, mercy and power of God, in exact 
proportion as they throw down the sinner into a condition of 
absolute impotency — that he cannot perceive the wisdom of their 
views — that a subject of God's government, who can but will 
not obey, might appear to himself much more guilty than one 
whose capacity of obedience had been wholly annihilated by the 
sin of Adam. 

Here there is no need of note or comment from me, and I 
proceed to the third charge. 

III. I charge Doctor Beecher with propagating a doctrine of 
perfection, contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church. 

Specifications. 1. Our standards teach that no man is able, 
neither of himself nor by grace received, to keep the command- 
ments of God, but doth daily break them. 

2. Doctor Beecher teaches that the sinner is able to do what 
God commands — that the Holy Spirit, in the day of his power, 
makes him willing — and so long as he is able and willing, there 
can be no sin. 



( «» ) 



3. The Perfectionists have founded on Dr. Beecher's theory 
the following pinching argument: 

66 Who does not know that Theology, as renovated and re- 
deemed from the contradictions and absurdities of former ages, 
by such spirits as Beecher, Taylor, and their associates, forms 
the stepping stone to the doctrine of perfection? Who, that can 
draw an obvious conclusion from established premises, but must 
see, at a glance, that christian perfection, substantially as we hold 
it, is the legitimate product of New England divinity ! We 
have been told in their schools that sin lies wholly in the ivill, 
and that man as a free agent possesses adequate ability, independ- 
ent of gracious aid, to render perfect obedience to moral law — 
in other words, to be a perfectionist. They have established 
the theory that by virtue of a fixedness of purpose, man is able 
to stand against the wiles of the devil and fully to answer the 
end of his being. Now if this system, which the opposers of 
the New School men were not able to gainsay, teaching man's 
ability, independent of gracious aid, to be perfect, to answer 
fully the end for which his maker created him, — if this be ortho- 
doxy, L ask, is it heresy, to affirm that by virtue of aid from a 
risen Savior, superadded to free moral agency, the thing is 
done? I see no " point of rest " for the advocates of New 
Divinity, short of the doctrine of perfection. If they will not 
advance, they must go back, and adopt the inability system of 
their opponents, which they have so often and so ably demon- 
strated to be the climax of absurdity and folly." 

Sir, I have called this a pinching argument. I now pro- 
nounce it triumphant. It is not offered as evidence, as Doctor 
Beecher has alleged; no, it is an argument founded on his theo- 
logical opinions and sustained by the evidence he himself has 
furnished. And how does the Doctor endeavor to make his 
escape from the evidence and argument? Truly, lay methods, 
if possible, worse than his doctrines. He shows an intention to 
mislead. I say intention — for he attempts to evade the point 
at issue, and then misrepresents the whole case. 

He says, " I am charged by Doctor Wilson with teaching the 
doctrine of perfection." Is it so? No such thing. The doc- 
trine of perfection is a glorious gospel doctrine, which every 
true gospel minister teaches: that believers are complete in 
Christ, and that Christ will present them faultless before the 
throne of his glory. 

But my charge against Doctor Beecher is, that he teaches a 
doctrine of perfection contrary to our standards. 

Doctor Beecher says: " I do teach that a sinner is able, to 
render such evangelical obedience as the gospel requires; and so 
far as God renders him willing, he is perfect." This teaching 
is not only in opposition to our doctrines, but to the history of 



( so ) 



Paul's experience, in the seventh of Romans. But Dr. B. says, 

" My sermon nowhere teaches that God does actually render a 
sinner willing to keep all his commandments. I know that to 
effect this, {i. e., perfection,) nothing is needful but that the sin- 
ner should be willing: when once he is so, all obstacle is 
removed." And is it really so, that " God does not, in the day 
of his power, make a sinner willing to keep all his command- 
ments " ! 

May I then be permitted to ask Dr. Beecher which of the 
commandments of God he is unwilling to keep? And why 
he is not ivilling to keep them all, when he at all times has the 
power of willing both ways? 

But the Dr. shifts his ground to escape the difficulty. " It 
has been said that ability and obligation when brought together, 
imply absolute perfection. And so say the Perfectionists." — 
No, sir, the Perfectionists say no such thing, they say as Dr. 
Beecher says, "so long as the sinner is able and willing to 
obey, there can be no sin." This is true, in Heaven, but on 
earth the sinner is both unable and unwilling — and when he is 
made willing, he sees, feels, and laments his inability, and hence 
he never becomes perfect in this life. But Dr. Beecher adds, 
" I have proved that man is able to obey the commandments of 
God, whether in the Gospel or the law. But Dr. Wilson says, 
if so, then I hold that man is perfect."— No assertion could be 
more unfounded. And then, he puts the question, "Do all men 
who are able to pay their honest debts, always pay them ?" I 
answer, no ; but men always pay their debts when they are both 
able and willing to pay them. 

Finally, he attempts to make his escape from this charge by 
saying, " Ministers are not responsible for the perversion of the 
truth which they preach." This is true, and it is also true, that 
in this case there was no truth preached, nor perversion of what 
was preached, and farther, ministers are responsible for the le- 
gitimate consequences of their doctrine — legitimate inferences 
are to be pinned down upon them. Thus said Paul, "If the 
dead rise not," what are the results? "ye are yet in your sins," 
"let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die." 

Moderator, the Presbj'tery made very light of this charge, 
but I consider it as a link in a chain of errors leading to the most 
dangerous results. But whatever may be your opinion respec- 
ting its importance, you cannot deny that it is sustained by the 
evidence. 

I now proceed to the consideration of charge fourth. 
IV. I charge Doctor Beecher with the sin of slander, viz: 
Specification 1. In belying the whole Church of God. 
The Doctor's statements are these: "There is no position 
which unites more universally and entirely the suffrages of tjae 



( 31 ) 



whole human race, than the necessity of a capacity for obedience 
to the existence of obligation and desert of punishment." — 
Again: "The doctrine of man's free agency and natural ability, 
as the ground of obligation and guilt, has been the received 
doctrine of the orthodox church in all ages." 

Specification 2. In attempting to bring odium upon all who 
sincerely receive the standards of the Presbyterian Church: and 
to cast all the reformers, previous to the time of Edwards, into 
the shades of ignorance and contempt. 

Dr. Beecher says: " Doubtless the balance of the impression al- 
ways made by their language" (language of the reformers) "has been 
that of natural impotency; and in modern da3's there may be 
those who have not understood the language of the reformers, or 
of the Bible, on this subject, and who verily believe that both 
teach that man has no ability of any kind or degree to do any 
thing that is spiritually good, and that the rights of God to com- 
mand and to punish survive the wreck and extinction in his 
subjects of the elements of accountability. Of such, if there be 
such in the church, we have only to say, that when for the time 
they ought to be teachers, they have need that some one should 
teach them which be the first principles of the oracles of God." 
Again: "It must be admitted, that from the primitive age 
down to the time of Edwards, none saw this subject with clear- 
ness or treated it with uniform precision and consistency. His 
appears to have been the mind that first rose above the mists 
which hang over the subject." 

Again: "So far as the Calvinistic system, as expounded by 
Edwards and the disciples of his school, prevailed, revivnls pre- 
vailed and heresy was kept back — and most notoriously it. was 
dead orthodoxv 6 opened the dykes and let in the flood ' of Ar- 
minian and Unitarian heresy." By attending to the whole 
passage, page 33, same sermon, the Presbytery will see that 
" dead orthodoxy," as the Doctor calls it, is " the doctrine of 
man's natural impotency to obey the gospel." Page 31, the 
Doctor attempts to make us believe, that from the time of Ed- 
wards, the theory of this sermon has been and now is the re- 
ceived doctrine of the ministers and churches of New England. 
The truth of this I am not prepared to admit, bad as I think of 
the New England theologians in general; but I am not prepared 
to deny it. Be it so, the matter is so much the worse. 

Again the Doctor proceeds in his strain of calumny: 

" Far the greater portion of the revivals of our land, it is well 
known, have come to pass under the auspices of Calvinism as 
modified by Edwards and the disciples of his school, and under 
the inculcation of ability and obligation, and earnest exhortations 
of immediate repentance and submission to God; while congre- 
gations and regions, over which natural impotency and depend- 



( 32 ) 



ence, and the impenitent use of means and waiting God's time, 
have disclosed their tendencies, have remained like Egypt, dark, 
beside the land of Goshen; and like the mountains of Gilboa, on 
which there was no rain, nor fields of offering; and like the 
bones in the valley of vision, dead, dry, very dry." 
And to complete the climax, the Doctor adds: 
« No other obstruction to the success of the gospel is there so 
great as the possession of the public mind with the belief of the 
natural and absolute inability of unconverted men. It has done 
more, I verily believe, to wrap in sackcloth the Sun of Right- 
eousness, and perpetuate the shadow of death on those who 
might have been rejoicing in his light, than all errors beside. 
I cannot anticipate a greater calamity to the church than would 
follow its universal inculcation and adoption. And most blessed 
and glorious, I am confident, will be the result, when her min- 
istry everywhere shall rightly understand and teach, and their 
hearers shall universally admit the full ability of every sinner 
to comply with the terms of salvation." 

" Let the Presbytery compare all this with the history of the 
Church, and the the doctrines of our standards on original sin, 
total depravity, the misery of the fall, regeneration and effectual 
calling, and say whether there is an Arminian, or a Pelagian, or 
a Unitarian, in the land, who will not agree with Dr. Beecher, 
and admit the 6 full ability of every sinner to comply with the 
terms of salvation,' and unite with him in considering it a 
calamity for the doctrines of our standards to be universally- 
adopted. " 

Here is the charge and the proofs. Now I ask what is slan- 
der? To slander, is to belie, to censure falsely, to bring up an 
evil report. And I affirm that Dr. Beecher has brought up and 
published an evil report against the dead and the living. Nor 
is this charge merely constructive, as the Presbytery would 
have you believe. Its truth and relevancy can be made clear by 
a few questions. 

Is it true, that the doctrine of fallen man's "full ability to com- 
ply with the terms of salvation," " has been the received doc- 
trine of the orthodox churches in all ages? " 

Is it true, that those who believe and teach that "fallen man is 
utterly disabled, and made opposite to all good, that being dead 
in sin, he is not able to convert himself nor prepare himself 
thereto," have misunderstood the Bible and the Reformers, and 
have need that one teach them again which be the first prin- 
ciples of the oracles of God ? 

Is it true, that those who believe and teach that "no man is 
able either of himself or by any grace received in this life, per- 
fectly to keep the commandments of God," have done more to 



( 33 ) 



wrap in sackcloth, the sun of righteousness and perpetuate the 
shadow of death, than all errorists beside? 

Is it true, "that from the primitive age down to the time of 
Edwards, none saw this subject with clearness, nor treated it 
with precision and consistency," not even the Westminster 
divines? 

Is it true, that the teaching of natural ability, fallen man's ple- 
nary powers to do all that God requires, has kept back heresy ? 

Is it true, that where " fallen man's utter inability to do 
that which is spiritually good," has been taught prominently, 
the churches have remained as sterile as the mountains of Gil- 
boah ? — and where human ability to obey God has been promi- 
nently preached, true revivals of religion have prevailed ? 

Is it true, that no other obstruction to the success of the Gos- 
pel is so great as the possession of the public mind with the belief 
of the inability of unconverted men? And is it true " that the re* 
suit will be most blessed and glorious when the Ministry every 
where shall teach, and their hearers universally admit the full 
ability of every sinner to comply with the terms of salvation ?" 

Sir, Dr. Beecher has made very grave charges against the or- 
thodox part of the church. And if none of these things be true, 
and if this Synod know them all to be false, is he not one of the 
very worst of slanderers ? I ask again, what is slander ? Dr. 
Beecher has answered the question. According to his definition, 
"an uncharitable suggestion, an evil report, is slander, which 
taints and ruins ministerial character and female character alike." 
To attack his good name in the public prints, is slander. But 
when he attacks his brethren in the pulpit and through the press, 
and holds them up by sophistry and misrepresentation and cari- 
cature, as eclipsing the sun of righteousness and obstructing 
truth, and opening the dykes and mounds to let in floods of 
heresy — when he uses his broadly extended influence to bring 
up a fog of suspicion around them, and around the Confession 
of Faith — when he, in short, belies the church of God — all this 
is no slander! Why ? Because it comes from a privileged 
character! It comes from the great Dr B. ! 

But, sir, his greatness cannot, before a just tribunal, shield 
him from merited censure — cannot wipe away his guilt, which is 
enormous and odious in proportion to his unsustained charges 
against his brethren; charges which, if sustained, would affect 
their fame and destroy their usefulness. 

I now ask the particular attention of Synod to the fifth 
charge. 

V. I charge Doctor Beecher with the crime of preaching 
the same, and kindred doctrines, contained in these sermons, 
in the Second Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati. 

Doctor Beecher has fully admitted that he preaches " the same 

E 



( 34 ) 



doctrines contained in these sermons, in the Second Church," 
and more, for he explicitly said before the Presbytery, " These 
are truths of which I find it necessary to make a constant use in 
the performance of my pastoral and ministerial duties." 

I have proved, to the satisfaction of every competent judge, 
that the doctrines which he calls " truths," and of which he 
" makes a constant use," are wholly at variance with the stand- 
ards of our Church. I need not delay to repeat them. But I 
must detain you while I point out some of their legitimate 
results. 

1. We are not sinners by imputation; for this would be 
charging us with the crime of Adam, in which we had no volun- 
tary agency. 

2. We are not, by the fall of Adam, defiled and disabled in 
all the parts and faculties of soul and body; for this would be 
physical depravity. 

3. If by sinning, in any way, we destroy our ability to obey 
God, the commission of sin becomes impossible. 

4. We are not passive in regeneration; for this would be a 
physical change — the spirit does not enable us to embrace, Jesus 
Christ, but persuades us by moral means to put forth our own 
energies. 

5. Every true christian is perfect in himself ; for unregene- 
rate men are able to obey God — when regenerated, they are 
•willing to obey — and, " so long as they are able and ivilling, 
there can be no sin." 

6. The Confession of Faith says that "man, by the fall, 
wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompany- 
ing salvation " — but this cannot be true, for fallen man has 
ability of will at all times to choose both ways. 

7. When the Confession of Faith teaches the utter inability 
of fallen man to do what is spiritually good, and that the sinner 
is wholly passive in regeneration, it teaches fatalism and leads 
to infidelity; so that the prosecutor in this cause is to be consid- 
ered in a rank with infidels, who consider man no more account- 
able than a stone or an oyster. 

Moderator, there is no dangerous error from Arminianism 
down to the lowest Unitarianism — there is no slander against the 
orthodox — to which Dr. Beeeher ? s "select system" does not lead! 

And is this the pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church? 
installed by the Presbytery of Cincinnati, " to feed " that peo- 
ple " with knowledge and understanding " ! Is this the Professor 
of Theology in Lane Seminary? appointed to train up a ministry 
for the west! Is this the teaching of Dr. Beecher? who was once 
considered the champion of orthodoxy in New England! 

But I forbear, and hasten to consider the last charge which I 
felt it my duty to present against the accused. 



( 35 ) 



VI. I charge Doctor Beecher with the sin of hypocrisy — I 
mean dissimulation in important religious matters. 

Specification 1. If Doctor Beecher has entered the Presby- 
terian Church without adopting our standards, he is guilty of 
this sin. This I believe, because I am informed he was received 
as a member of the third Presbytery of N. York, without ap- 
pearing before them — because he was received by the Presby- 
tery of Cincinnati without adopting our standards — and be- 
cause the installation service does not require their adoption. 

Specification 2. If Doctor Beecher has adopted our stand- 
ards, he is guilty of this sin; because it is evident he disbelieves 
and impugns them on important points — subjects declared by 
himself to be of the utmost moment. 

Specification 3. When Doctor Beecher s orthodoxy was in 
question, I think before the Synod, in the first Presbyterian 
church, he made a popular declaration, " that our Confession of 
Faith contained the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, 7 ' or words to that amount. 

I thought then, and still think, that it was dissimulation for 
popular effect. The crime is inferable from the circumstances 
of the case. If he has adopted the standards of our church as 
our form of government requires, it is competent for him to 
show when and where. But the charge of hypocrisy is equally 
sustained, in my estimation, whether he has or has not. He 
may take whichever alternative he can best defend. 

Specification 4. When Doctor Beecher preached and pub- 
lished his sermon on dependence and free agency, he was just 
about to enter the Presbyterian church, with an expectation of 
being pastor of the second Presbyterian church in Cincinnati, 
and teacher of theology in Lane Seminary. He either did not 
know the doctrines of our Church., or if he did know them, he 
•designed to impugn them, and vilify those who honestly adopt 
them. * 

No one will pretend that Doctor Beecher adopted the stand- 
ards of our Church when he was received by the Presbytery of 
Cincinnati, or when he was installed pastor of the second church. 
And I will now exhibit indubitable evidence to prove that he did 
not adopt our standards when he was received by the third 
Presbytery of N. York. 

"Third Presbytery of N. York,} 
July 9th, 1832. 5 

'A letter was received from the Suffolk Association (Mass.), 
dismissing the Rev. Lyman Beecher, D. D., to unite with this 
Presbytery. Accompanying this letter of dismission, was one 
from the Rev. Doctor Beecher, containing a request to be received 
under the care of this Presbytery, and a written assent in due 
form to the questions required by our form of church government 



( 36 ) 



Whereupon, his request was granted, and Doctor Beecher was 
duly received as a member of this Presbytery/ 

£ September 11, 1832. 
i The Rev. Mr. Patton preferred a request from the Rev. Ly- 
man Beecher, D. D., to be dismissed to unite with the Presby- 
tery of Cincinnati, and his request was granted.' 

True extracts from the minutes. 

Erskine Mason, Stat. Clk." 

"New York, July 29, 1835. 

At the stated meeting of the Synod of New York, held in the 
city of New York, October 17, 1832, the following record was 
made, on page 275, viz: 

4 The Committee on the records of the third Presbytery of N. 
York, presented the following report, which was accepted, and,, 
after discussion, was adopted, and is as follows, viz: 

' That the records be approved to page 90, with the following 
exception: 

6 The proceedings in the case of the Rev. Lyman Beecher, 
D. D., who was received into the third Presbytery of N. York, 
on a certificate of dismission from the Association of Suffolk 
North (Mass.), but without any credentials from the dismissing 
council, without being present in person before the Presbytery, 
and without any intention on his part of residing within the 
bounds of the Presbytery. 

6 The Committee consider the proceedings to have been uncon- 
stitutional, irregular^ and, of course, not for edification.' 

A true extract from the minutes of the Synod of N. York. 

Attest, Elihtt W. Baldwin, Stated Clerk." 

In connexion with this you will not forget, that the third specifi- 
cation is abundantly proved by the testimony of Judge Burnet, 
and otaers, and the 4th, is conceded. How then is it possible 
for Dr. Beecher to escape from the charge of dissimulation? 

His first method of escape is ( as usual ) by laying down a 
false position. He says, " Before Dr. Wilson can establish this 
charge, he must prove two things; first, what I said; and sec- 
ondly, that I was not and could not be honest in saying it." 

Is this the true doctrine in criminal prosecutions ? Is it not 
enough, for the prosecutor to prove what the accused has said 
and done; and in what circumstances he spoke and acted, and 
then infer the crime ? Suppose a man is charged with the crime 
of murder, must the prosecutor prove the malice? No, he proves 
the killing and the circumstances connected with the act, and then 
infers the malice. To prove a crime, according to Dr. Beecher's 
position would require the skill of the searcher of hearts. 

Not confiding however, in the correctness of his own position, 
the Doctor has attempted to escape under the mantle of charity. 



( 3? ) 



He says, "Christian charity hopeth all things, and believeth 
all things; and it never will admit the existence of sin in a 
brother, and especially a sin so odious as that of hypocrisy, till 
the proof is irresistible. " 

If this be the extent and power of christian charity in the pro- 
tection of the guilty; then all trials must be taken from the 
hands of men and referred to God alone; for there are men, hu- 
man tribunals, ecclesiastical courts, that can resist the clearest 
and strongest proof ! no proof to them " is irresistible." 

I admit that the proof in this case, should be clear and abun- 
dant; and so it is. If proof could be irresistible, this is so. — 
What are the facts proved and admitted before the Court ? — 
Plainly these. 

1. When Dr. Beecher had decided to come to Cincinnati, to 
take the Pastoral charge of the second Presbyterian Church, 
and occupy the theological chair in Lane Seminary, he publish- 
ed his sermon on Dependence and Free-agency, in which he 
impugned the standards of the Presbyterian church, and vili- 
fied her orthodox ministry, both the living and dead. 

2. Instead of coming to Cincinnati, joining the Presbytery 
there, and adopting the standards of the church, openly and 
fairly as the rules require; he slipped into the 3d. Presbytery of 
New York, in an " irregular and unconstitutional " manner; and 
then by "clean papers" from that clean Presbytery, he as ea- 
sily slipped into the Presbytery of Cincinnati, without adopting 
our standards ! 

3. When Dr. Beecher's orthodoxy was seriously called in 
question, and the subject was in debate before this Synod, to make 
a favorable impression on your minds, and conciliate popular 
favor, he took a conspicuous station, held the Confession of 
Faith in his hands, pressed it to his bosom, and said with all 
the solemnity of an oath, " I believe this book to contain the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Yet when 
pressed on this subject, before the Presbytery, he changed his 
ground, and said, " I had no such thought as applying this lan- 
guage rigidly to the whole Confession." Then nothing can be 
plainer than that he intended to deceive the Synod, and impose 
upon the public. 

4. There was a report in circulation, which Dr. Beecher un- 
dertook to contradict before the Presbytery, not by denying its 
truth, but by trying to turn it into a joke! The report was this, 
" Dr. Beecher said sneeringly, concerning the Confession of 
Faith: 'there is no document which means one thing, and says 
another, equal to that.' He could not deny saying this, but he 
replies, 'what I may have said jocularly among friends, I can- 
not tell, and will not be answerable for. But I never uttered 
any such sentiment seriously, because I hold none such." And 



( 38 ) 



yet he affirmed concerning the Confession of Faith, "If some 
of its terms are taken in the meaning usually attached to them 
at this day, it speaks error." 

Again, when it seemed to answer his purpose, the Doctor 
made the following declaration : — " The Confession is not a 
mere human composition. It is the statement of what God has 
said, and is to us, who receive it, the word of God. We profess 
that it is, in all its parts, according to the word of God." And 
he affirms that he did adopt the Confession of Faith thirty-five 
years ago, when he was ordained by the Presbytery of Long 
Island." But how ? He says — " I do not say that I subscribed 
the Confession of Faith, at that time, under the declaration that 
it contained nothing but the truth — I had not then studied it 
enough." And again — " On further inquiry, I believe, that on 
the points in controversy , the Confession contains the truth. I 
do concur with the standards, as I understand them. You say I 
am a heretic, according to the plain and obvious meaning of the 
standards — but your plain and obvious meaning is not my plain 
and obvious meaning." 

Here then you have Dr. Beecher's honest method of receiving 
the Confession of Faith. He first receives it without having 
studied. it sufficiently to know w T hether it was all true or not — 
then he examines it, and finds that in its obvious meaning it 
teaches error — but on further examination, and by " collateral 
lights," he now receives it as speaking the very truth, on the 
points in dispute, when he explains it ; that is, when his " ob- 
vious meaning" is put upon it. For example — " God by his 
grace alone enables the sinner freely to ivill and do" means, 
" enables him to will freely." Again — •" Man by the fall whol- 
ly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good," means, "he al- 
ways has ability of will to choose both ways." Once more — 
" Not able by his own strength to convert himself," means, 
" full ability to comply with the terms of salvation." Here are 
some of his " obvious meanings !" 

Now suppose he did adopt the standards of the Presbyterian 
Church, as a system, without knowing whether it was all true 
or not ; how long did he remain in the Presbyterian Church? 
No longer than it suited his convenience to change his position 
and become a Congregationalist. After twenty years it has 
suited his convenience to return back to Presbyterianism ! Did 
he adopt our standards in New York ? Did he in Cincinnati ? 
yes, in the First Church, before God, before this Sjmod, before 
a large congregation, he pressed the book to his bosom, and 
averred, that "it contained the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth," without intimating a solitary exception ! I have 
said that this was done with dissimulation for popular effect. 
How does he attempt to escape from this conclusion ? Why, 



( 39 ) 



says he, "I had no thought of applying this language to the 
whole Confession" — "the entire system of doctrine was not in 
dispute." Indeed ! And suppose " the entire system" had been 
"in dispute," to what parts would Dr. Beecher take exceptions 
or refuse assent ? But the whole system was in dispute, for the 
motion under consideration was for the appointment of a com- 
mittee to prepare charges against Dr. Beecher on a " fama cla- 
mosa" — and his sweeping, reckless assertion was made to 
prevent the appointment and conciliate the public. But now it 
seems he did not intend to apply his language to the whole Con- 
fession. Does this mend the matter ? Does it not prove that 
when "the whole system" is " in dispute," Dr. Beecher has his 
scruples — exceptions— mental reservations ; — and whether these 
"scruples" make up "ounces" or "pounds," none but God 
can tell. 

All this twisting and turning, affirming and denying, going 
out and coming in, explaining, re-explaining, and then explain- 
ing again the re-explanation, is utterl}' inconsistent with all our 
ideas of honesty, candor, sincerity and truth. It is all truly 
characteristic of the man who at one time could affirm, the Con- 
fession is the word of God to us ivho adopt it, and at another 
time, whether in jest or earnest, say to his friends, there is no 
book which speaks one thing and means another like that. 

It may be said that Dr. Beecher is not conscious of his incon- 
gruities — that he perceives not his own dissimulation. Be it so. 
Does this alter facts, or blot out crime ? When seducing men wax 
worse and worse and worse, do they always know it ? — when 
they are " deceiving and being deceived," are they conscious 
of their hypocrisy ? Nay, verily, hypocrites are the most un- 
likely of all men to know themselves. But I will place the 
matter on the same footing that Dr. Beecher has placed it. He 
says, " All the charges turn on the charge of erroneous doctrine. 
If the doctrines I teach are according to the word of God and 
the Confession of Faith, then I am neither a slanderer nor a 
hypocrite." Agreed. But if the doctrines you teach impugn 
the standards of the Presbyterian Church, you are a slanderer, 
for you have said that the orthodox " eclipse the Sun of Right- 
eousness" — and you are a dissembler, for you have professed to 
believe what you evidently deny. And I leave this court of 
Jesus Christ to judge between us. 

Moderator, I have shewn by historical evidence the causes, 
the nature, and the importance of this prosecution. I have 
pointed out to you the irregularities in the proceedings of the 
Presbytery. I have proved their partiality to the accused — their 
prejudice against the prosecutor — and their manifest neglect of 
duty. I have fully shown that all the charges are sustained by 
the evidence. And now it remains to call your attention— 



( 40 ) 



IV. To the definitive sentence. 

" On motion, the following minute was recorded as the deci- 
sion of Presbytery in the case, viz. : 

Resolved, that in the opinion of this Presbytery, the charges 
of J. L. Wilson, D. D., against Lyman Beecher, D. D., are not 
sustained, for the following reasons : — 

1. As to the charge of depraved nature, it appears in evi- 
dence that Dr. Beecher holds and teaches, that in consequence 
of the fall of Adam, and the divinely appointed connexion of all 
his posterity with him, man is born with such a constitutional 
bias to evil, that his first moral act, and all subsequent moral 
acts, until regenerated, are invariably sinful ; which bias to evil 
is properly denominated a depraved nature, or original sin, as in 
the standards of our church. 

2. As to the second charge, relating to total depravity, and 
the work of the Holy Spirit, Dr. Beecher holds and teaches, 
that this depravity is so entire, and in such a sense insuperable, 
that no man is, or ever will be, regenerated, without the special 
influence of the Holy Spirit accompanying the word, as express- 
ed in the standards of our church. Larger Catechism, question 
155, and scripture proofs. 

On the subject of ability, Dr. Beecher holds and teaches, that 
fallen man has all the constitutional powers or faculties to con- 
stitute moral agency and perfect obligation to obey God, and 
propriety of rewards and punishments ; that the will is not, by 
any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good or evil — 
according to the Confession of Faith, chap. ix. sec. 1, with scrip- 
ture proofs. 

At the same time, Dr. Beecher holds and teaches, that man, 
by the fall, is morally disabled, being entirely averse from that 
which is good and dead in sin, so that he is not able to convert 
himself or prepare himself thereunto. 

The extracts from Dr. Beecher's sermons, brought to sustain 
the above charges, when taken in their proper connexion, and 
with the limitations furnished by the context, do not teach doc- 
trines inconsistent with the Bible and standards of our church. 

3. As to the charges of perfectionism, slander, and hypocrisy, 
they are altogether constructive and inferential, and wholly un- 
sustained by the evidence. 

Presbytery then resolved that they do not decide the amount 
of censure due to Dr. Wilson, but refer the subject to Synod for 
their final adjudication. Dr. Wilson gave notice that he should 
appeal to Synod from this decision. Messrs. Gains. Schillinger, 
Kemper, Cumback, Aton, Andrew, Harvey, Burtt, Brown, Hay- 
den, Monfort, and Gazlay, gave notice of their dissent and pro- 
test against this decision." 



( 41 ) 



Moderator, this Synod cannot but notice, in reviewing this 
definitive sentence, the sweeping declaration with which it be- 
gins. " In the opinion of this Presbytery, the charges are not 
sustained." No, not a single charge nor specification sustained! 
Doctor Beecher admitted himself to be the author of the ser- 
mons — he admitted the correctness of my quotations — he admit- 
ted that he preached the same doctrines in the second church — - 
he boasted that he constantly used these doctrines in his public 
ministry — he admitted his error, as specified under charge IV., 
so far as his statements regarded the writers before the time of 
Edwards — he admitted the truth of specification 4th, under 
charge VI. so far as it relates to his prospects when he pub- 
lished his sermon on dependence and free agency — and he pro- 
duced not a particle of evidence to show that he had ever adopt- 
ed the standards of the Presbyterian Church, as the form of 
government requires — and if it has not been proved that he en- 
tered the Presbyterian Church in an unconstitutional manner, 
and that he impugns her doctrines on subjects declared by him* 
self to be of the utmost importance, then nothing can be demon* 
strated. 

Spec. 3, charge VI. is proved by his own witnesses as well as 
mine — and if a doubt remained respecting his dissimulation, 
that doubt has been dispelled by the whole manner of his de- 
fence. 

Sir, look at all this! In the face of all these admissions, 
proofs, demonstrations, the Presbytery passed their sweeping 
vote, 6 the charges are not sustained '! Nothing exceptionable 
in Doctor Beecher's doctrines, language, movements, explana- 
tions, nor measures! All in accordance with the standards of 
the Church! in harmony with the injunction of Synod! in 
agreement with his own pledge! No error, no wrong phrase- 
ology, no evil report against the dead or living! All right! 
Well, well, let us examine their reasons for this unequalled de- 
cision. 

And, " 1st, as to the charge of depraved nature, it appears, 
in evidence, that Doctor Beecher holds and teaches, that in con- 
sequence of the fall of Adam, and the divinely appointed con- 
nexion of all his posterity with him, man is born with such a 
constitutional bias to evil, that his first moral act and all sub- 
sequent moral acts, until regenerated, are invariably sinful; 
which bias to evil is properly denominated a depraved nature^ 
or original sin, as in the standards of our Church." The Pres- 
bytery says, " it appears in evidence that Doctor Beecher holds 
and teaches " as they have specified. Now, sir, I call for this 
evidence. Evidence, on a trial, must be testimony, parol or 
documentary — faithfully recorded, and ready for use. Dis. Ch. 
vi. sec. 17. Why do they cot produce this evidence of what 

F 



( 42 ) 



" Doctor Beecher holds and teaches "? Because they never had 
any such evidence before them! Nay, the very doctrine as- 
cribed to Doctor Beecher by the Presbytery, is stoutly denied 
by him, namely, constitutional depravity — " born with a con- 
stitutional bias to evil, so that all his moral acts are invariably sin- 
ful, properly denominated a depraved nature." This is con- 
stitutional depravity which Doctor Beecher has denied and ridi- 
culed. This is "the great black pool behind the will — the 
patent machine continually working out sin," that Dr. Beecher 
abhors. " This," he says, " is physical depravity " — it makes 
man sin like " animals propagate their kind, or the ox eats grass, 
or the lion feeds upon flesh." If Doctor Beecher's explanations 
are to be considered as " evidence" then his testimony is so 
contradictory that it cannot be relied on. He says, " I said in 
my sermon " (on native character) " that sin is voluntary. The 
doctrine I meant to oppose, was that of physical, natural, consti- 
tutional, depravity." Again: he says, "The real doctrine of 
original sin is, that the posterity of Adam inherit a corrupt na- 
ture." Once more: " I do not throw back actual sin on that 
which is anterior to all action" — and again, "there must be 
something anterior to voluntary action — some reason why men 
go wrong"— "Our constitutional bias to evil is called original 
sin." This contradictory jargon is what the Presbytery calls 
" evidence " of what Doctor Beecher teaches, and they say, 
" This constitutional bias to evil is properly denominated origi- 
nal sin, as in the standards of our Church." Let us see. 
The standards say, " The guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of 
original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature, is 
called original sin." But Doctor Beecher explains, and says, 
this " constitutional bias to evil " is not " natural constitutional 
depravity," for that would be " physical depravity." "It 
comes down upon the posterity of Adam, as a political evil would 
come upon the people of the United States from the evil conduct 
of their chief magistrate." But after all, what is this " consti- 
tutional bias to evil "? According to Doctor Beecher, it is the 
loss of the " moral power of the will." Nothing put wrong by 
the fall of Adam but the will! And that was put only half 
wrong! The moral ability of the will, i. e. ivillingness, was 
struck out of balance by the jolt of the fall; L e., it received a 
" constitutional bias to evil, properly denominated original sin " 
— but the natural ability of the will remained in statu quo — in 
equilibrio; i. e., the natural ability of the will remained unim- 
paired by the fall, and though it never exercised itself in choo- 
sing good, yet it always had the natural ability of choosing both 
ways at the same time! And this, says the Presbytery, is ac- 
cording to " the standards of our Church " ! ! 
I am done with their first reason. 



( 48 ) 



2nd Reason. "As to the second charge, relating to total de- 
pravity, and the work of the Holy Spirit, Doctor Beecher 
holds and teaches, that this depravity is so entire, and in such 
a sense insuperable, that no man is or ever will be regenerated, 
without the special influences of the Holy Spirit accompany- 
ing the word, as expressed in the standards of our Church. 
Larger catechism, ques. 155, and scripture proofs." "Total 
depravity is so entire." Entire! What is that? Why, 
complete in all its parts. Total depravity is so complete in all 
its parts. How complete (entire)? Let Doctor Beecher an- 
swer for himself: " The position I have laid down in my pub- 
lic teaching is, that man possesses an ability fully adequate to 
the performance of all the duties which God has required of 
him." — " So far as our natural and constitutional powers are 
concerned, there is no difference betwixt us and Adam." — " Can 
it be that the Lord still requires of his (Adam's) posterity, that 
they, without the powers of their ancestor, should exercise the 
perfect obedience that was demanded of him?" — " When the 
Holy Spirit comes to set in order that which is out of the way, 
what does he find amiss? Nothing but a perverted will." 
This is total depravity — entire, complete depravity — with a 
witness! But Doctor Beecher is never at a loss for an explana- 
tion. Hear him! " When I say that the will is free from con- 
straint or defect, I do not mean that the faculty of the will has 
not been shattered, wounded, disturbed, and put out of order. 
I admit that such a change was produced by the fall. The shock 
struck the will out of its balance. The will is free, but it is under 
a bias, and so fully set in the wrong way, that nothing but the 
truth and spirit of God can ever bring it right again." This, 
and similar absurdities, called explanations, (called by the Pres- 
bytery evidence}) has led them to say that Dr. Beecher teaches 
" depravity so entire, and in such a sense insuperable, that no 
man is or ever will be regenerated, without the special influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit accompanying the word." 

Now, sir, I wish to examine Dr. Beecher's teachings, on the 
subject of regeneration, " by the special influences of the Holy 
Spirit;" and see if they are, " as expressed in the standards of 
our church." 

Dr. Beecher has spoken more plainly, and practised less equiv- 
ocation on the subject of regeneration, than almost any doc- 
trine he has touched. His views are briefly expressed in the 
following passages, some of which, are taken from the writings 
of the Fathers, but all adopted as his own. 

" There is need of our own free will, and of divine co-opera- 
tion." 

" Man has need of all that free agency can do, and all that 
grace performs besides." 



( 44 ) 

■ 

" A man is not moved by the hand of God as a block of stone. 
He must strive, and yet if he strives ever so much, he will ac- 
complish nothing savingly, unless God draws him. 

" God leaves man to his own will, that he may receive either 
rewards or punishments, according to his own will and his own 
merit. Nor does it follow that the whole of what will happen, 
will be of man, but of his grace, who has given all things." 

" The grace of the spirit is insufficient for those who have not 
willingness. Grace is not to be expected while a man puts forth 
no effort for his own deliverance." 

" No man is helped of grace until he does something to help 
himself." 

" I am charged with teaching that regeneration is accomplish- 
ed by the truth. The whole matter turns upon this — a thing 
which is done by instrumental agency cannot, at the same time, 
be done by direct agency. Regeneration is accomplished by 
the instrumentality of the word of God — the saving change in 
man is accomplished by instrumentality. If this be heresy, I 
shall carry it out of the church with me, and yet I hope that I 
shall leave it in the church too." 

Whether this be heresy or not, I must leave the Synod to 
judge. The sum and substance is this, the Holy Spirit helps 
no man till he has willingness, and puts forth his ability, and 
helps himself, and then the Holy Spirit helps him by the in- 
strumentality of the word, or in the language of the Presbytery, 
" the special influences of the Holy Spirit accompanying the 
tvord." Somehow helping the sinner by instrumentality after 
he is alive, and able and willing, and doing all he can for himself. 

Sir, I have heard semipelagianism preached in the Presbyteri- 
an church more than thirty years ago, but this is the first time 
I have known a Presbytery attempt to sustain it ! 

In another place, Dr. Beecher has admitted what he calls the 
" direct natural power of God," in regeneration. But here, as 
usual, he contradicts himself, and perverts the scriptures. He 
says, " the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of 
God, neither can he know them, &c." " Does this mean that an 
unconverted man can have no just conceptions of the gospel ?" 
"It cannot be any natural inability which is removed in regenera- 
tion. I admit the interposition of the direct power of God, so 
far as it relates to the bodily and natural powers of man. I nev- 
er denied that an exertion of God's natural power, so far as it 
respects natural things, is concerned in the work of man's re- 
generation. This I have always believed, and well I may. — 
What was it that opened my eyes?" "I hold that God operates 
on matter by his direct omnipotence; and that he operates or 
mind by moral means." 



( 45 ) 



Moderator, I need trouble this Synod no longer with these 
crude absurdities. Yet it is proper before I pass from this sub- 
ject, to show that both Dr. Beecher and the Presbytery remain 
to this hour ignorant of the true doctrine of regeneration. They 
uniformly confound regeneration with conversion. Regenera- 
tion is that work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a 
change of heart. Conversion is a turning from sin to holiness. 

In regeneration we are passive, in conversion we are active. 
Regeneration is included in the " effectual call of God's free 
and special grace." ( Compare Con. of Faith, chap. x. sec. ii. 
with chap. xiii. sec. i. ) Conversion is our embrace of the grace 
offered, when we are enabled to answer this call. In regenera- 
tion," God the Holy Spirit, is the immediate and direct agent. — 
In conversion, the outward and ordinary means of salvation is 
the instrumental cause. 

On this subject, the Presbytery have referred you to the L. 
C, ques. 155, and scripture proofs. 

The question, answer, and proofs relate to conversion, not to 
regeneration. The topic is " the outward means whereby 
Christ communicates to us (to his Church — ques. 154) the bene- 
fits of his mediation." " The outward means are made effectu- 
al for the salvation of the elect." " The reading, especially the 
preaching, of the word, are effectual means of enlightening." Is 
this regeneration? What is the proof? " Psalm xix. 8. The 
commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes." 
Here " the pure commandment" is compared to a ray of light 
from the sun. But. could all the light that ever came from the 
sun quicken the dead, or open the eyes of one born blind? No; 
it is when the Holy Spirit, in effectual calling, quickens us and 
opens the eyes of our understandings, by his own immediate 
power, the same exceeding great and mighty power which 
wrought in Christ when he was raised from the dead, under the 
operation of which we are wholly passive, then indeed "the 
pure commandment of the Lord enlightens the eyes, because 
the " new creature in Christ has eyes " to see the heavenly 
light." (Compare ques. 75, 76, on the subject of conversion, 
and Con. F., chap. x. sec. ii., and chap. xiii. sec. i., on regenera- 
tion — the only places, I believe, in the Confession where regen- 
eration is directly mentioned.) I will not take time to pursue 
this subject at present. If what I have stated be controverted, 
I will enlarge in my reply. 

The Presbytery have said, that the extracts from Doctor 
Beecher's sermons, taken in their proper connexion, do not teach 
error. 

I say the extracts in the form of propositions are correctly 
made. Doctor Beecher never denied this. And 1 defy them 
to show that the connexion makes them any better. 



( 46 ) 



On their other reasons for this extraordinary decision, I shall 
say nothing, now; but pass to the reference. 

The Presbytery have passed a censure upon me; and have, 
by reference, submitted the amount of censure to be fixed by 
this Synod. This is not the worst thing they have done, but 
it is certainly one of the meanest of all their transactions. 

Moderator, it is the right, and it may be the duty, of one of 
the most obscure members in the Church to bring charges against 
a gospel minister. And if these charges be not sustained, does 
it follow that he deserves censure? Is this the rule of disci- 
pline! No sir; "he shall be censured in proportion to the ma- 
lignancy or rashness that shall appear in the prosecution." — 
Where there is no malignancy, nor rashness, there can be no 
censure. They knew, every body that attended the trial knew, 
Doctor Beecher admitted, that no such things appeared in this 
prosecution. And yet they could not close their monstrous de- 
cision without passing a vote of censure, and asking you to fix 
the degree. You are, perhaps, more skilled in the rule of pro- 
portion, and can decide better than they whether one nothing 
is equal to two nothings — there is no malice, no rashness, and 
therefore, according to the rule of proportion, there must be 
some censure! — for the prosecutor must be censured in propor- 
tion to his malignancy or rashness — but as the case is new, 
difficult, and of peculiar delicacy, (Dis. Ch. vii., sec. ii. sub sec. 
2,) we will make a reference! The Synod shall decide the 
degree of censure! 

This, sir, is as insulting to you, as it was unkind and unjust 
to me. And I have only to remind you that a respectable mi- 
nority have dissented from, and protested against these un- 
righteous proceedings. I deeply regret that the Synod have re- 
fused to hear the protest of the minority. It is on record and 
certainly is a part of the proceedings in this case. A committee 
was appointed by the Presbytery, with Professor Stowe at their 
head, to answer this protest. No answer is reported. As usual, 
whenever any thing is unanswerable, then comes the maxim, 
"answer him not." But if this protest, so important to the pros- 
ecutor in this cause, cannot obtain an answer, it may, possibly, 
obtain an audience before a superior tribunal. 

I feel, sir, that we are all placed in circumstances peculiarly 
solemn. The parties before you are engaged in a contest deeply 
affecting to themselves. The one, as he believes, contending 
for the Faith, the other struggling for standing and influence in 
the Presbyterian Church. A majority of the Presbytery have 
decided in his favor. By an appeal you are called upon to ren- 
der a decision in favor of truth. I have ventured to express a 
hope, in the close of my appeal, that you will deliver a sentence 



( 47 ) 



clear and decisive, to sustain the friends of truth, and put out 
of our church such as impugn her doctrines. Whatever your 
decision may be, it must make a deep impression for good or 
evil. 

I beseech you to look at the present state of the Presbyterian 
Church. Behold her! corrupted, divided, distracted, shaken to 
her foundations ! " If the foundation be destroyed, what can 
the righteous do ?" Look at the churches in this great valley. 
Scorched by wild-fire,' ( mis-named revivals, ) and scathed with 
false doctrines — they remain, indeed, " like the mountains of 
Gilboa !" Look at the rising ministry, now in a course of 
instruction, to be evangelists and pastors, when we shall be in 
our graves ! Look at the multitudes in this and other lands, 
that are perishing for lack of knowledge ! And imagine, yes, 
imagine, if you can, the ruin, the wide-spread desolation, when 
having been taught by Professors, of " select systems they 
shall all preach the "full ability of fallen man to comply with 
the terms of salvation." Shall all deny the doctrine of imputa- 
tion of sin and righteousness. Shall all deny the immediate in- 
fluences of the Spirit of God, in man's regeneration. And shall 
all affirm that "God leaves man to his own will, that he may 
receive either rewards or punishments, according to his own 
will, and his own merit !" Is this another gospel ? No, it is 
a device of Satan to ruin souls. What would Paul say in such 
a case ? "I would they were cut off, that trouble you." But 
I forbear. This Synod know their master's will. The impor- 
tant question is, will they do it ? 

To this plea, Dr. Beecher made a replication, and I made a 
rejoinder-. The Synod then deliberated, and came to the fol- 
lowing decision. 

" Resolved, That the appeal be sustained. 

1st. Because the Synod see nothing in the conduct of Dr. 
Wilson in preferring and prosecuting the charges against Doctor 
Beecher, which ought to infer censure. 

2d. Because although the charges of slander and hypocrisy 
are not proved, and although Synod see nothing in his views, 
as explained by himself, to justify any suspicion of unsound- 
ness in the faith: yet on the subject of the depraved nature of 
man, and of total depravity, and the work of the Holy Spirit in 
effectual calling, and the subject of ability, they are of opinion 
that Dr. Beecher has indulged a disposition to philosophize, in- 
stead of exhibiting in simplicity and plainness, the doctrines as 
taught in the Scriptures, and has employed terms and phrases, 
and modes of illustration calculated to convey ideas inconsistent 
with the word of God, and our Confession of Faith, and that 



( 48 ) 



he ought to be, and hereby is admonished to be more guarded 
in future. 

The parties were called into Court. 

Dr. Beecher declared his ready acquiescence in the decision 
of the Synod, and his determination to act conformably to their 
admonition. Whereupon, it was 

Resolved, 1st. That Synod express their entire satisfaction 
with the aforementioned agreement and determination of L. 
Beecher, and are happy in believing that nothing insuperable 
remains to prevent his usefulness, or impair our confidence in 
him as a minister of the gospel in the Presbyterian Church. 

Resolved, /2nd. That L. Beecher be, and he hereby is, re- 
quested to have published, at as early a day as possible, in 
pamphlet form, a concise statement of the argument and design 
of his sermon on native depravity, and of his views of total de- 
pravity, original sin, and regeneration, agreeably to his declara- 
tions and explanations made before Synod. 

The following resolution was offered, and indefinitely post- 
poned: 

Resolved, That Doctor Beecher be required to make a public 
and explicit disavowal of the sentiments contained in the charges 
and specifications, and that the same be entered on the records 
of Synod. 

James H. Dickey, Stated Clerk." 

Had this last resolution been adopted, it would have evinced 
the soundness of the Synod, and showed their determination to 
arrest the progress of error, and put away evil from among us. 
But the indefinite postponement was painful to the friends of 
truth, because they saw " the whole lump " was nearly " leav- 
ened." 

Had Dr. Beecher complied with the request of the Synod, as 
he promised to do, the importance of my appeal to the. Gen- 
eral Assembly would be obvious. But his work called " Views 
in Theology," substituted for his defence before the Synod, is 
quite another thing. The one was a quart of alcohol mingled 
with a gallon of water — the other is the same quantity of mix- 
ture diluted in a hogshead, or sixty-three gallons. The poison 
is all there, but mingled with so much wholesome drink, as to 
render it comparatively harmless. Something, therefore, was 
gained by the Sy nodical admonition, to which he professed sub- 
mission ! Believing, as I did, that justice was not done, and the 
demands of truth not satisfied, I laid before the General Assem- 
bly the following appeal. 



( 49 ) 



State of Ohio, Dayton, October, 1835i 

*To the Moderator and Commissioners of the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
of America, — to meet in the first Presbyterian Church, 
in the City of Pittsburgh, on the third Thursday of May, 
1S36, at 11 o'clock, A. M.; or wherever and whenever the 
said Assembly may happen to sit. 

DEAR BRETHREN IN THE LORD, 

The best interests of the Presbyterian Church appear to me to 
require that I should appeal to you from a decision of the Synod 
of Cincinnati, made by them during their present sessions, in 
this borough, by which they sustained my appeal from the pro- 
ceedings and definitive sentence of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, 
in the case in which the Rev. Lyman Beecher, D. D., was tried 
and acquitted by said Presbytery, on charges brought by me 
against Doctor Beecher, for holding and propagating doctrines 
at variance w T ith the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, and 
for other offences; and by which decision of the said Synod, at the 
same time, Dr. Beecher was so far acquitted from the charges 
preferred against him, as to be exonerated from the suspicion 
of erroneous doctrine, and to receive only a mild admonition 
respecting, his philosophy and phraseology. 

From this decision of the said Synod of Cincinnati, so anom- 
alous in its character, and dangerous to the Church in its tenden- 
cy, I appeal to this general Assembly, as the supreme judicatory 
of the Presbyterian Church, sitting as a court of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, to preserve the purity, promote the peace, and secure the 
prosperity of the Church; for the following reasons, namely: 

1. Because the aforesaid decision of the said Synod affirms 
that they see nothing in the views of the Rev. Lyman Beecher^ 
D. D., as explained by himself, to justify the suspicion of un- 
soundness in the faith. 

2. If the explanations of Doctor Beecher had been so satis- 
factory as to remove all grounds of suspicion, in the view of 
the Synod, they were not given in writing, and have not been 
made a matter of record, to be handed down to the Churches, to 
restore confidence, heal divisions, and re-establish ministerial 
fellowship in the Presbyterian Church. 

3. The decision is not sufficient to secure the church of 
which Doctor Beecher is the pastor, nor the seminary in which 
he is Theological Professor, against the deleterious influence of 
his false philosophy and dangerous phraseology. 

4. The explanations given by him, if they had been given 
in writing, were so far from being satisfactory, that they greatly 
augmented the evils of which I complained. For, by the ex- 

G 



( 50 ) 



planations which he offered, he attempted to prove, as he did 
before the Presbytery, that I am a fatalist, and stand on the 
same ground with Robert Owen. 

In consequence of this, I have been already denounced in one 
of the New School papers, (the St. Louis Observer,) as a heretic 
of the worst kind — not fit to preach, nor to retain a standing in 
any orthodox church. 

If Doctor Beecher loves the Presbyterian Church, how can 
he rest in it while I am preaching what he conceives to be fatal- 
ism? How can he discharge his duty without bringing charges 
against me? In this situation, neither party can bid " God 
speed " to the other. Public recantation of one party, or ex- 
pulsion from the Church, must take place before the evil can be 
remedied. 

5. Doctor Beecher's explanations form a curious mixture of 
what is called Calvinism, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. 

6. I brought my charges against Doctor Beecher for holding 
and teaching doctrines contrary to the Standards of the Church; 
and I left the court to decide whether they were heresy or dan- 
gerous errors. I believe them to be dangerous errors; and my 
desire is that he publicly and explicitly renounce them, or go 
out of the Church. 

7. If my understanding of the doctrines of the Bible, as ex- 
pressed in the Standards of our Church, be at all correct, — then 
Dr. Beecher has slandered the Church of God and her Ministry; 
but this charge was not sustained. 

8. My charge of hypocrisy involved Dr. Beecher's constitu- 
tional standing in the Presbyterian Church. This point was 
made prominent by the testimony I offered from the records 
of the Third Presbytery of N. York, and from the records of 
the Synod of N. York. It is of great importance for this ques- 
tion to be settled; for if Dr. Beecher is in Lane Seminary as 
Professor of Theology, and yet is not in the Presbyterian 
Church, in a constitutional and regular way, then the charter of 
the Seminary is forfeited. I consider the decision of the Synod 
of N. York final and valid, in this case, inasmuch as no appeal 
was taken nor complaint made; but it would go still further to 
secure the Church against dangerous encroachments, by the con- 
currence of other Judicatories, and especially by the General 
Assembly. 

9. The Synod of Cincinnati decided that the Protest of the 
Minority of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, made no part of the 
records in this case, and refused to hear it read, although it was 
admitted on the records of the Presbytery. 

For these reasons, I appeal to the General Assembly. 

(Signed) J. L. WILSON. 



( 51 ) 



This appeal was reported by the permanent clerk, and re- 
ferred to the Judicial Committee, on Friday, May 20; and on 
Thursday, the 26th of May, it was withdrawn. The record of 
the Assembly in this case is truly meagre; neither stating what 
was done, nor the reasons of the transaction. 

The history of this important affair is happily preserved, and 
published with fidelity in the " Pittsburgh Christian Herald," 
July 17th, 1836. 

"CASE OF THE REV. DR. BEECHER. 

"Dr. Wilson committed his appeal, in the case of Dr. Beecher, 
into the hands of the judicial committee, and on Wednesday 
morning, May 25, Dr. Hoge, chairman of the judicial committee, 
stated that Dr. J. L. Wilson had requested leave of the commit- 
tee to withdraw his appeal from the decision of the Synod of 
Cincinnati in the case of Dr. Beecher. That committee thought 
it proper to report the request to the house. It was his duty to 
say that Dr. Wilson might have abandoned his appeal without 
this step, but had chosen to pursue what he believed the most 
orderly course. As Dr. Beecher was interested in the case, it 
might be proper to hear a few words from him. 

"The assembly agreed to this suggestion. 

"Dr. Beecher then said that for the sake of precision he had 
reduced his remarks to writing, and should be glad to have them 
in some way go upon the records. 

" [Here Dr. B. presented his remarks in writing, which con- 
tained some expressions that seemed to imply that Dr. Wilson 
withdrew his appeal for fear of the responsibility incurred by 
the prosecution.] 

"Dr. Wilson. — When I requested leave to withdraw my ap- 
peal, in the case of Dr. Beecher, I anticipated no objections from 
any quarter ; much less did I expect a paper to be presented 
here, to be placed on your records, containing insinuations 
against the purity of my motives in bringing up this appeal 
from the court below. Can any one suppose that I would leave 
my beloved people, and my family, and hazard my life for days 
and nights on a floating volcano, and come to Pittsburgh, at great 
expense, for the base purpose of vexing Dr. Beecher ? God for- 
bid ! I love that venerable man, though I hate his theology. 

"As matters now stand, I must beg the attention of the As- 
sembly to a short history of this ease. 

"The Synod of Cincinnati acquitted Dr. Beecher of even 'the 
suspicion of unsoundness in the faith V — not on the evidence 
before them, but on the ground of his explanations ! After my 
appeal, with reasons, was read and laid on the table, they re- 
quested Dr. Beecher to have published, at as early a day as pos- 



( 52 ) 



sible, in pamphlet form, a concise statement of his argument and 
explanations, made before them, in his defence. 

"I freely own, sir, that I then said, if Dr. Beecher's pamphlet 
should be satisfactory, this appeal should not be prosecuted. I 
looked, with great anxiety, for this concise argument — but I 
looked in vain. More than five months passed away, after the 
adjournment of Synod, and no pamphlet came. And it was not 
till the evening before the meeting of our Presbytery, in April, 
that I received a copy of Dr. Beecher' s Views in Theology. I 
had no time then to examine such an extended work — I had 
previously decided to prosecute my appeal — my decision had 
been published in the newspapers — and I had written to the 
stated clerk of Synod to forward to this General Assembly an 
attested copy of the whole proceedings ; and under a strong con- 
viction of duty I made my arrangements to bring this business 
to an end before this Assembly. In the mean time, I have read 
Dr. Beecher's book, and frankly say, it is unsatisfactory. It is 
not such a book as the Synod requested him to publish. In the 
preface, Dr. Beecher says that he has not confined himself to the 
limits nor the language of his argument before the Synod. His 
errors remain unretracted. He has attempted to explain and 
justify them. 

" The book, on many accounts, is not satisfactory to me, how- 
ever much it may please others. Before my arrival here and 
since, I have been requested and almost entreated to abandon 
this appeal. Many brethren whom I esteem and love, and with 
whom I have been accustomed to act, have earnestly requested 
me to withdraw it. This request from brethren so numerous, 
so respectable, carried with it, to me, almost the force of a com- 
mand. I took the subject under serious consideration, and i-t 
was not until Tuesday last, that I saw my way clear to make the 
request now before the Assembly. And, sir, what did I hear on 
Monday ? I heard from several brethren, that Dr. Beecher 
had preached on Sabbath two powerful orthodox sermons, by 
which he. had cut up new schoolism by the roots. Well, I al- 
ways rejoice when orthodoxy is preached, and when aged men 
grow wiser and better. But, sir, I have another reason for 
wishing to withdraw this appeal. The case now before you, 
( the case of Mr. Barnes,) if tried on its merits, will settle our 
doctrinal disputes. And why trouble this Assembly, or Doctor 
Beecher with this appeal, seeing that the trial of one case will 
be sufficient. But if Dr. Beecher objects, if there is one word 
of objection from any member in this House, then I will not 
withdraw my appeal. I stand ready to prosecute it, and it will 
appear, when properly presented, a much clearer and stronger 
case than many brethren apprehend. I solemnly protest against 
any thing being entered upon the record that will reflect 



( 53 ) 



on my motives. If I am rash, contumacious, or malicious, then 
censure me. But if there be none of these things — and so the 
Synod have said, so Dr. Beecher himself has said — then I de- 
serve not to have my motives called in question. 

" And now I will withdraw or prosecute this appeal as Doctor 
Beecher and this Assembly shall think most for the purity of 
the church, the harmony of brethren, and the glory of God. 

"Dr. Miller. — I have been in hopes that the Assembly are a- 
bout to be delivered from attending to this matter, and I have 
not abandoned that hope yet. I must acknowledge that when 
Dr. Beecher read the brief statement which you have heai'd, I 
did regret the semblance of insinuation which it seemed to con- 
tain. I hope that Dr. Beecher, in the spirit of fraternal accom- 
modation, will consent to take back that paper and divest it of 
every thing that looks like a reference to the motives or state of 
mind of the prosecutor. If Dr. B. will do this, I shall be grati- 
fied. This is a court of Jesus Christ, and I hope that every thing 
here will be done in the spirit of the Gospel, which is the spirit 
of love and of peace. 

"Dr. Beecher said that as he had meant to convey no insinua- 
tion whatever, and not having anticipated such an impression as 
it now appeared the expressions employed, had produced, he 
wished to modify them. 

"Dr. Wilson. — If there is the slightest objection to my with- 
drawing this appeal, I will withdraw my request for leave. I 
had rather prosecute it than not. 

" Dr. Peters. — I rise to move the appointment of a committee 
of five, to confer with Dr. Wilson and Dr. Beecher, and to draft 
a minute which they can recommend to the adoption of this As*- 
sembly, so that all farther discussion of this matter may be avoi- 
ded. 

" Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, and would only add, that 
this delicate and interesting subject had occupied the deep and 
anxious attention of the judicial committee. He had cherished 
the hope that the result would be such a reconciliation between 
these two venerable and valuable men, as would secure their 
future co-operation in contributing to the good of the church. 

" Mr. Brainerd here rose to speak, but the Moderator stop- 
ped him, when 

" Dr. Beecher again presented his paper, modified as follows, 

" ' Although I have been twice cleared on the charges pro- 
posed to be withdrawn, in the court below, their renewal in the 
form of an appeal is calculated to perpetuate suspicion, and to 
prevent the confidence which belongs to innocence. I rejoiced, 
therefore, in having an opportunity to explain once more, my 
doctrinal opinions, and express my thoughts on various topics, 
calculated to vindicate my character, and to promote the purity 



( 54 ) 



and peace of the church. What the effect of the withdrawment 
of these charges may be, leaving me still surrounded and impe- 
ded by suspicion, in my efforts to serve the church, I am unable 
to say. I am prepared for trial, and am persuaded that I should 
be able to add to the evidence of my affectionate fidelity to the 
Presbyterian church, and honest and cordial conformity to her 
doctrinal standards; but I have full confidence in the General 
Assembly that they would do nothing in the case, which in their 
opinion would compromit my rights, or the safety of the church ; 
and I prefer, therefore, instead of expressing any wishes of my 
own, to refer the subject entirely to their discretion.' 

" Dr. B. said he never had indulged, and did not then hold 
the opinion that Dr. Wilson had acted otherwise than conscien- 
tiously in his appeal. He always had believed that Dr. Wilson 
felt bound in conscience to act as he had done. Far be it from 
him to insinuate the contrary; and he was glad of an oppor- 
tunity of disclaiming any such purpose. He had modified his 
paper, and now left it to the Assembly to do with it as should 
seem good in their sight. 

" The Moderator forthwith appointed a committee consisting 
of Drs. Peters and Miller, and Messrs. Boyd, Cleveland,' and 
Ewing. 

" On Thursday afternoon, May 26th, after the opening of the 
House, — 

"Dr. Beecher said, with the permission of the Moderator, I 
wish to state what I meant to have stated before, that during the 
whole progress of the ecclesiastical action in the case of Doctor 
Wilson and myself, there has never occurred any thing at 
all like personal animosity; that notwithstanding provocations 
which might be supposed to arise from such a state of things, 
there has prevailed throughout, between the parties, an unbro- 
ken state of good will, uninterrupted by any personal discourte- 
sy in conversation, or in deed; and so far as I am concerned, no 
wounds have been received either personal or ministerial, which 
need to be healed ; that since the present Assembly has met, I 
have had the pleasure of a personal interview with Dr. Wilson, 
and that we have mutually agreed that the effect would be better 
if the matter stopped here. * I am therefore ready to withdraw 
the paper which I have put in, and to leave Dr. Wilson's case 
to the disposition of the Assembly, believing that the chances 



* This agreement was made with the full understanding that I should, if I 
thought proper, publish my " plea before the Synod of Cincinnati." My rejoin- 
der is consigned to oblivion, only so far as it may have been remembered and re- 
peated by those who heard it. It was delivered from short notes, and cannot now 
be written out, after the lapse of a year and a half. 



( 55 ) 



of kind feeling all around will be greater this way, than from 
any other course. 

66 Dr. Wilson. — This proposal is in perfect accordance with my 
own feelings and wishes. If the matter should end here, I be- 
lieve it would be most for comfort, and perhaps for edification. 

" The Moderator thereupon put the question, Shall leave be 
granted to Dr. Beecher to withdraw the paper which he has 
laid before the Assembly, and to Dr. Wilson to withdraw his 
appeal; and it was unanimously decided in the affirmative. 

"A Member moved that every thing on this subject be stric- 
ken out of the minutes, except the withdrawal of the appeal. 

"Dr. Miller moved that the committee to whom the case had 
been referred, be discharged, which was agreed to. 

"Dr. Peters. — I hope the record of this transaction will not be 
stricken off the minutes. The record does nothing more than 
give a true history of what has happened, and of facts which 
have led to a happy result, a result every way creditable to both 
the parties concerned. It is known to the public that such an ap- 
peal has been brought up to the Assembly, and it is desirable 
that they should also know the happy manner in which it has 
been withdrawn from the action of this body. 

" Dr. Miller supported the motion to obliterate all the rec- 
ords, after the request to withdraw the appeal. 

" Mr. Patterson. — I doubt the propriety of this course. I 
wish the record to stand so, that all who receive it may perceive 
what we all believe to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this 
matter; and also, that if at any future time there may be opposite 
representations of the manner in which the appeal has been 
withdrawn, the true account might be made on the records of 
the church to correct any mis-representation. I have often had 
experience of cases where much strife and mischievous alterca- 
tion might have been prevented, had full and correct minutes 
been preserved of what had passed in a judicatory; and should all 
official records of the present transaction be stricken out, it might 
not be ten days before some strife would arise as to the manner 
in which the appeal has been withdrawn, and the circumstances 
which led to its withdrawal. 

" Ji Member. — As leave has been granted to withdraw the 
appeal, all other records would be out of place. Let the min- 
utes state, that leave had been asked and granted to withdraw 
the appeal, and here would be an end of it. 

"The question was then taken on the motion to strike out; 
which was carried by a very large majority." 



( 56 ) 



REMARKS. 

Dr. Beecher^ s book — " Views in Theology " — not satisfac- 
tory to me. 

The Synod of Cincinnati, at their last meeting, passed this mat- 
ter over in silence. The Synod had requested Dr. Beecher " to 
have published, at as early a day as possible, in pamphlet form, 
a concise statement of the argument and design of his sermon 
on native depravity; and of his views of total depravity, orU 
ginal sin, and regeneration, agreeably to his declarations 
and explanations made before the Synod." Did he comply 
with this request? Why did he not? He tells the reason. 
" It will not be easy to illustrate my views, on the subjects 
named, in the form of independent dissertations, without the 
danger of alleged discrepancy." Here is the true secret of a 
long book. Here is the true reason for extensive departure 
from the " limits and language " of his defence. Dr. Beecher 
could not publish, concisely, his "declarations" and "expla- 
nations made before the Synod," without something more 
than " the danger of alleged discrepancy." To preserve the 
semblance of consistency, his " meaning must be bandaged in a 
muck of words" — and himself concealed in the shadows of 
such venerable men as Twiss and Dwight. Why did the Synod 
pass this matter in silence? 

But I have other reasons for being dissatisfied. 

1. Dr. Beecher has filled ninety-six pages on the subject 
of " Natural Ability " — a subject on which the Synod did not 
request him to write. For though they condemned his philos- 
ophy, terms, phrases, and modes of illustration, as being in- 
consistent with the word of God; yet the distinction between 
natural and moral ability or inability, as expressed by some able 
and good writers, was viewed by the Synod as comparatively 
harmless. 

Though Dr. Beecher has not confined himself to " the limits 
nor language " of his defence before the Synod, he has taken 
care to inculcate the soul-destroying doctrine of " human abil- 
ity."* He still insists upon his " capacity of choice, with the 
power of contrary choice." — "All the powers of the mind 
which were required and did exist when man was created free, 
are still required to constitute free agency — and can it be, that 
when all that capacitated Adam freely to choose, is demolished, 
that the Lord still requires of his posterity, that they, without 
the powers of their ancestor, should exercise the perfect obedi- 
ence that was demanded of him?" I have put " demolished " 



* I cannot consider it harmless, nor comparatively harmless. Human ability 
and indefinite atonement lie at the foundation of our troubles in the Church. 



( 57 ) 



in italics, that it may be noticed. I wonder if Dr. Beecher can 
state any thing fairly, with all his " plenary power "? ^De- 
molished" " annihilated" are some of his favorite terms in 
3iis caricatures! 

Who ever taught that the powers of the mind were " demol- 
ished " by the fall of Adam? Are powers defiled and disabled, 

<6 DEMOLISHED "? 

Will the Synod of Cincinnati always endorse for Doctor 
Beecher? 

2. Doctor Beecher has taken up forty pages with a subject 
not in dispute — "moral inability" — viz: the unwillingness of 
fallen, ttnregenerate men to obey God. But even here he 
teaches dangerous errors. " The impotency of will to do good, 
is constitutional bias to actual sin." " The moral ability of 
will is biassed — put out of balance — but the natural ability of 
the will remains unimpaired, always has natural power to choose 
good." " When the Confession says, 6 man lost all ability of 
will to any spiritual good,' it does not mean that he is not able 
to do right." Well, what does it mean when it adds, "Man 
became dead in sin — wholly denied in all faculties and parts of 
soul and body^-utterly disabled — indisposed and made opposite 
to all good — -and wholly inclined (not merely biassed, but 
wholly inclined) to all evil" ? And this, too, before any actual 
transgression by Adam's posterity. The guilt of Adam's sin 
is imputed; and all this defilement, disability, unwillingness, 
-opposition to good, inclination to evil, death in sin conveyed by 
ordinary generation! What does the Confession mean when it 
says all this? Doctor Beecher has told what it does not mean. 
Will the Synod of Cincinnati tell us what it does mean? 

3. Why did Doctor Beecher, in giving his " views in 
theology." take up so much time and space in giving the 
views of others? It was not the views of fifty other system 
makers, but his views, concisely, as explained before the Synodj 
that were wanted. 

Why, in giving the views of others, did he garble Doctor 
Matthews and falsify me? Had he quoted the whole paragraph 
from the sermon of Dr. Matthews, it would have shown the 
ability and orthodoxy of that amiable man; but the garbled ex- 
tract reminds me of Dr. Beeeher's human ability to make " CaU 
vinism walk on one leg." 

He says, "Dr. Wilson's views of free agency"— -and adds, 
" Dr. Wilson has made a distinct avowal that free agency and 
moral obligation to obey law, do not include any ability of 
any kind" Why did Dr. Beecher repeat this calumny? He 
knew that I had denied the correctness of the reporter. He 
knew that I had disclaimed the sentiment in private and public^ 
through the press, and before the Synod. He knew that this 

H 



( 58 ) 



was not the point in debate. The point in dispute was, and 
still is, " whether fallen man has any ability of any kind, to 
do that which is spiritually good accompanying salvation — 
whether fallen man, independent of supernatural aid, has ability 
of any hind to do all that God requires?" I said no. Doctor 
Beecher said yes. Here we were fairly at issue. We w T ere not 
debating whether a child of Adam was a rational accountable be- 
ing, or whether he was " demolished," " annihilated," turned 
into a stone or an oyster — but whether he was " disabled" by 
the fall, and yet held accountable. 

To do Dr. Matthews and myself both justice, I will here in- 
sert the whole passage which Dr. Beecher has garbled. 

" Christ, as the head of the Church, is the source of vitality, 
the author, the g;iver of life to every member, and thus to the 
whole body collectively. Such is the head to the human body. 
The functions of other parts, the heart and the lungs, for in- 
stance, are essential to life; but it is rather as channels of com- 
munication, than as sources of vitality. They may remain per- 
fectly entire, without the slightest injury; and yet, if separated 
from the head, their functions will instantly cease, and the 
principle of life in the body will be extinct. The smallest and 
remotest part is as regularly supplied with nourishment from 
the head, as those which are more important and more nearly 
connected with the fountain of life. In like manner, spiritual 
life, emanating from Christ, the living head, pervades the whole 
body, quickening into animation and action every member, how- 
ever obscure and unimportant such member may be in the estima- 
tion of the world. 

"There are two senses in which we are dead, in both of 
which Christ is emphatically our life. On account of our guilt, 
and in proportion to it, we are under the condemnation of the 
law; we have been weighed in the balance, and have been found 
wanting; sentence of death is pronounced upon us by the .Judge 
of all the earth. Like the man who is condemned to suffer 
death for violating the laws of the state, the moment when this 
sentence is passed, is dead in the view of the law: he sustains no 
other relation to civil society than that of a condemned criminal. 
His animal existence may be prolonged for a few days, but he 
no longer enjoys the rights and privileges of a citizen; in a civil 
sense he is now dead. We, by nature, sustain to the moral 
Governor of the world no other relation than that of condemned 
rebels; we have forfeited all the rights and privileges which be- 
long to faithful and obedient subjects. Our natural life may, for 
a time, be preserved; but the favor of God which is life is lost 
- — the sentence of death is solemnly pronounced upon us. Nor 
is it possible by any sacrifices which we can offer, by any exer- 
tions we can make, to avert the stroke of justice to which we 



( 59 ) 



are exposed ; to change our state of condemnation into a state of 
favor with God. Nothing but the pardon of all our sins can 
shield us from this deserved punishment, and restore us to the 
blessings enjoyed by the faithful subjects of the moral commu- 
nity. All the repentance which we can feel, all the reformation 
which we can accomplish, all the services which we can render, 
will never diminish the amount nor change the nature of the 
guilt we have already contracted. For want of correct 
evangelical motives, while making these efforts, we are adding 
to this guilt. In this sense, Christ is pre-eminently our life. — 
By his sufferings and death, he has made an atonement for sin, 
which procures pardon for all who believe in him. Mathemat- 
ical demonstration is' not more clear or convincing to the mind, 
than is the proof from the Bible that we are pardoned through 
his death, and restored to the divine favor through his right- 
eousness, 6 imputed to us and received by faith alone.' The 
Church, which is his body, he hath purchased with his 
own blood. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, being made a curse for as. Ye ivere redeemed ivith the 
precious blood of Christ. Thou hast redeemed us to God by 
thy blood, is the language of Heaven, where nothing but truth 
is spoken. It is literally true that Christ died for our sins. — ■ 
Hence, we have redemption through his blood, even the for- 
giveness of sins; and God for ChrisVs sake hath forgiven us. 
We are not only pardoned, but also reconciled to God by the 
death of his Son. Justification includes not only the remis- 
sion of our guilt, but also acceptance to the favor of God. For 
this purpose he is made unto us righteousness; and we are 
made the righteousness of God in him; that is, in him we ob- 
tain that righteousness which God requires in order to our- ac- 
ceptance. Our state is thus changed; we pass from death unto 
life. Our relation to God is changed from that of condemned 
criminals, to that of friends, and even of children, sharing in ail 
the kindest affection of our Father. In Christ Jesus, we are re- 
stored to the society of Heaven, to all the rights and privileges 
of those who enjoy the favor of God. 

" There is another sense in which we are dead, and in which 
Christ is our life. We are by nature insensible to the claims 
both of the divine law and the gospel. The tenants of the grave 
are insensible to the interests and the active pursuits of 
life; the wealth, the honor, the pleasure of this world, no longer 
make any impression on them. So are we insensible to the real 
interests of eternity, to the intrinsic importance of spiritual 
things. The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against 
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; but it awakens 
no salutary, no practical fear. The goodness, the pardoning 
mercy of Gad is proclaimed; but no gratitude, no love is ex- 



( 60 ) 



cited. The joy* and glories of Heaven are set before us; but 
not an effort is made to secure them. Promises, exceeding 
great and precious promises, are made; but no confidence is 
reposed in them. Our case, though in some respects it bears a 
striking resemblance to those who sleep in the grave, yet in 
others is widely different. They make no opposition to the 
active pursuits of life; nor does any blame attach to them on 
account of their insensibility. Not so, however, with us; we 
have eyes, but we see not; ears, but we hear not; : hearts, but we 
perceive not. We have, indeed, all the intellectual faculties, 
and moral powers which belong to rational beings; but they are 
devoted to the world; they are employed against God and his 
government. Instead of love, the heart, is influenced by enmity 
against God; instead of repentance, there is hardness of hearty 
instead of faith, by which the Savior is received, there is unbe-> 
lief, by which, with all his blessings, he is rejected. We pos- 
sess, indeed, all the natural faculties which God demands in his 
service; but. we are without the moral power, we have not the 
disposition, the desire, to employ them in his service. This- 
want of disposition, instead of furnishing the shadow of excuse 
for our unbelief and impenitence, is the very essence of sin, the 
demonstration of our guilt. 

" Here, then, is work for Omnipotence itself. Here is not 
only insensibility to be quickened, but here is opposition, here 
i;s enmity to be destroyed. The art and the maxims of men 
may change, in some degree, the outward appearances, but they 
never can reach the seat of the disease; there it will remain, 
and there it will operate, after all that created wisdom and 
power can do. That power which can start the pulse of spirit- 
ual life within us, must reach and control the very origin of 
thought, must change our very motives. Our case would be 
hopeless, if our restoration depended on the skill and the efforts 
of created agents. Thanks be to God, however, there is a 
vital energy in Christ, which sends the tide of divine anima- 
tion through every one that is united to him by faith. When 
this world came into existence, when light sprang out of dark- 
ness, it was not at the request, but at the command of the 
Creator; so, at the command of the Head of the Church, light 
and life pervade what was but just now a scene of darkness 
and of death. The soul, even when dead in sin, by the Spir- 
it and the word of Christ, is quickened into life. It has new 
views of divine truth; its affections are placed on new and 
spiritual objects; and the whole man is animated by the vital 
principle of faith, and governed by the motive of love to God. 
If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; or, there 
is a new creation. New views, new thoughts, new affections. 



( 61 ) 



and new motives, have changed the whole character, and clearly 
indicate a connexion with the Prince of Life. 

" By bestowing the gift of eternal life on each individual 
member, it is bestowed on the whole body collectively. The 
whole Church is redeemed from the curse of the law, and re- 
stored to the favor of God, and to the community of Heaven. 
The whole Church is animated and controlled by the principle 
of spiritual life from Christ, the glorious and exalted Head. — 
This life may be communicated through different channels, be 
preserved and increased by various means; but still it flows 
from the same inexhaustible fulness in Christ. He has given 
pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for 
the edifying of his body; the different members may be highly 
useful in comforting and strengthening each other, according 
to the effectual ivorking in the measure of every part, ma- 
king increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love. 
These pastors and teachers, however, and these members, are 
but the servants of Jesus Christ, qualified and placed in the 
Church for this purpose. The ordinances of public worship, of 
reading the scriptures, of prayer, of the holy Sabbath, are emi- 
nently useful in animating and purifying the church; yet these 
are but means appointed by infinite wisdom; all their invigora- 
ting effects are from Him who giveth the increase" 

From this admirable passage, Dr. Beecher has quoted a sen- 
tence, which speaks of " the intellectual faculties and moral 
powers which belong to rational beings " of" all the natural fac- 
ulties which God demands in his service," and of " the want 
of disposition, desire or moral power to employ them " in God's 
service ; and then he says, "Dr. Wilson commended this." So 
I did. So I do commend the whole passage. Why, then, did 
Dr. Beecher repeat the calumny against me ? For no purpose 
that I can possibly see, but for the base purpose of publishing all 
the irrelevant and contemptible things which he has said about 
fatalism and Atheism — Fanny Wright, and Robert Dale Owen. 
He wanted to make a display on this subject, as Arminians and 
Infidels often do, when opposing a Calvinistic creed; and 
rather than be disappointed, he would lay as the ground-work 
of his exhibition what he knew to be untrue and absurd. Could 
it have been from this flourish about fatalism, that the wise 
Synod of Virginia opened their battery upon fatalists in the 
Presbyterian Church ! 

Dr. Beecher, after garbling Dr. Matthews, affirms that he a- 
grees with Dr. Matthews, and that I agree with Dr. Matthews; 
Ergo, we all agree as " manifest as two things that are equal 
to the same are equal to one another," and he says, " I chal- 
lenge man or angel to find any thing like a discrepancy." 

Can Dr. Beecher point out " any thing like a discrepancy " in 



( 62 ) 



the following sentences — "In the day that thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die." — " In the day ye eat thereof, then your 
eyes shall be opened, and 3^ shall be as Gods ? " 

If he cannot, let him try his skill on the following: — 

<: We are dead, b}^ nature insensible to the claims of law and 
gospel, as the tenants of the grave are insensible to the active 
pursuits of life — here is work for omnipotence — insensibility to 
be quickened — opposition — enmity, to be destroyed — that pow- 
er that can start the pulse of spiritual life in us, must reach and 
control the very origin of thought.*' 

" Man is able, and only unwilling to do what God commands; 
when the Holy Spirit comes to search out what is amiss, and 
put in order that which is out of the way, he finds no impedi- 
ment to obedience to be removed, but only a perverted will, 
and all he accomplishes in the day of his power, is to make the 
sinner willing.'' 

So much for the challenge! But I am not writing a review 
of Dr. Beecher's "Views in Theology." That I leave to the 
Synod of Cincinnati, or any body else who can prove them to 
be orthodox. I shall now present the reader with an extended 
article that will amply repay him for all the time and attention 
he may bestow upon it. 

The UNANSWERED and UNANSWERABLE 
PROTEST 

OF THE 

MINORITY OF THE CINCINNATI PRESBYTERY. 

We the undersigned, members of the Presbytery of Cincinna- 
ti, do enter this, our solemn protest against the act of the Pres- 
bytery, by which they acquitted Lyman Beecher, D. D., at their 
meeting in Cincinnati, on the 17th of June, 1835, of the char- 
ges preferred against him, by J. L. Wilson, D. D. 

FrnsT, Because the specifications were fully proved by 
extracts from sermons, which the accused confessed himself the 
author of, and by the farther confession, that he had preached the 
same doctrines in the 2d Presbjnerian Church, in Cincinnati, 
and by the farther confession, that what he had affirmed in his 
sermon on Dependence and Free Agency, was not true, viz ; — 
" That from the primitive age down to the time of Edwards, no 
one saw the subject ( Human Ability,) with clearness, or treat- 
ed it with uniform precision and consistency." When the char- 
ges were so clearly sustained, the acquittal of the accused was 
inconsistent with that faithfulness which should characterize the 
officers of Christ's House. 



( 63 ) 



We protest ; because as a precedent, this acquittal of Doctor 
Beecher, goes to destroy all discipline for heresy, in the Pres- 
byterian church, for in our judgment, no doctrines can be taught 
directly in opposition to our standards, if those are not so, 
which were set forth in the charges, and which Dr. Beecher 
confessed that he teaches. 

We protest against that acquittal of the accused, because if the 
church is ever to arise, maintain her purity, secure her peace, 
and purge out the leaven of error, she ought to do so when 
there is an urgent call, and a clear case. Such was the case be- 
fore the Presbytery. When a Presbyterian minister of Doctor 
Beecher's age, acquirements and influence, boldly propagates un- 
sound doctrine, corrupting his own church, it is both more 
necessary and more noble, to make an example of him, by doing 
him justice, than to take an inferior character for such a purpose ; 
for, to let our light shine before men, we must make it manifest 
that we do not respect persons in judgment. 

We protest against that acquittal, because we think that the 
case of the accused was greatly aggravated, by his professing 
great, attachment to our standards, in gestures, pressing them to 
his bosom in public, and declaring that they are true, every sen- 
tence and every word, that they contain the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth ; when he cannot be supposed 
to be so ignorant upon the subject, as not to know that our stan- 
dards teach that we sinned in Adam, and that the guilt of that 
sin is imputed to us, and becomes our sin, w T hich he denies, by 
declaring that all sin is voluntary, and by maintaining that, to be 
able and unwilling to obey God, is the only possible way in which 
a free agent can become deserving of condemnation and punish- 
ment: by maintaining "that every step of the sinner's moral his- 
tory, closely scanned, flashes conviction on his conscience that the 
whole impediment is, in its nature, increase and continuance vol- 
untary." We cannot suppose that the accused does not know 
that imputed sin is not voluntary sin. We think his case was 
greatly aggravated by professing such warm attachment to our 
standards, which teach that we have such a corrupt and sinful 
nature derived from Adam, as renders us, prior to voluntary trans- 
gression, deserving of God's wrath and curse; while he believes 
and teaches, " that the depravity of man is voluntary, that nei- 
ther a depraved nor holy nature is possible without understand- 
ing, conscience and choice," — " that a depraved nature cannot 
exist without voluntary agency." We do not believe that the ac- 
cused supposes that such sentiments as these, are in accordance 
with our standards. If he does believe so, he is so destitute of 
understanding, as to disqualify him to be a teacher of others. If 
he does know their contrariety, his case is the more aggravated. 
It only injures his character in our opinion, to profess to believe 



( 64 ) 



that all are born with a sinful nature, when his real opinion ac* 
cords with that of Dr. Taylor of New Haven, that all of Adam's 
posterity, in consequence of his sin, are under such a bias, that 
it is certain they will commit actual sin, when they become of suf- 
ficient age t ) exercise understanding, conscience, and choice," 
and that they are not accountable nor punishable for any original 
sin, norfor any thing but actual sin. By sinful nature, he means 
a nature that renders it certain that they will commit actual sin> 
and not a nature that is sinful itself, and which renders us de- 
serving of punishment. This is a sinful nature without sin — a 
sinful nature without accountability. And while he wishes to 
be considered as holding to our standards, which represent us as 
wholly defiled by nature, in all the faculties and parts of soul 
and body, he believes that there is no depravity in the heart, or 
in any faculty, except the will. His words are these, — " It is 
admitted that no new faculties are created in regeneration.—* 
What then is there to be changed but the will?" " When He 
(the Spirit,) pours the day-light of Omniscience on the soul, and 
comes to search out what is amiss, and to put in order that 
which is out of the way, he finds only the will perverted ; and 
in the day of his power, all that he accomplishes is to make the 
sinner willing."* If this is contrary to our standards, as we 
are sure it is, we must protest against sanctioning it, by a sol- 
emn presbyterial act; because to advance such doctrines, and 
profess attachment to our standards, is only to aggravate his 
offence. 

We protest against that decision, because it clearly appeared 
throughout the trial, that the accused believes in human ability 
to comply with every divine requirement, independent of gra- 
cious aid ; and teaches it, in as strong terms in our judgment, as 
any Arminian or Pelagian. And he deduces the doctrine from 
this gratuitous assumption, which stands in opposition to the 
Holy Scriptures, as well as to our standards, that God cannot, 
without injustice, require any thing of his creatures, which they 
are unable to render. 

This doctrine we conceive to be the worst of heresies, and the 
entering wedge by which they have made their way 'into the 
orthodox churches; a doctrine which, when received, and con- 
sistently carried out, destroys the whole system of gospel truth. 

From the above radical error, "that God cannot require what 
we are unable to render," we believe the following errors natu- 
rally arise, as unavoidable consequences. 

1st. That the doctrine of imputation cannot be true; for to re- 
quire us to be free from the sin of Adam, when it is imputed 



* Sermon on Dependence and Free Agency, pp. 18 — 19. 



( 65 ) 



to us, is requiring a natural impossibility. And to punish us 
for it, would be to punish us for what we could not avoid. 

2nd. It also follows that the doctrine of a sinful nature, con- 
veyed from Adam, with death in sin, to all his posterity, and 
adjudged to be truly and properly sin, and of its own nature to 
bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the 
wrath of God, and the curse of the law, cannot be true. For 
as this corrupt nature is conveyed independent of our volition or 
action, it is naturally and every way impossible for us to avoid 
it; and therefore we cannot be accountable for it; unless we 
can be made accountable for that which it is naturally impossi- 
ble for us to avoid. 

3rd. It also follows, that there is no reason why we should 
have any concern for infants, prior to the time when the matu- 
rity of their understanding, conscience and choice, becomes such 
that they are capable of accountable action, so as to be able to 
avoid actual sin. 

4th. It also follows, that the Christian warfare is a solecism; 
for every man is as holy as he wishes or wills to be. There 
cannot be any strife in the mind with the heart on the one handj 
and the conscience, the judgment, and the will, on the other; 
for the state of the soul is voluntary — is as the will is. If the 
Christian wills his heart and soul to be in a certain moral state^ 
then it is so immediately. There is no difficulty in having the 
soul instantly in that state. Any warfare in the mind is impos- 
sible, if all is voluntary — if all must obey the will. But even 
if it were not so, and if the christian could not have the state 
of his heart and soul conformed to his will, yet that would not 
be sin — would not be any thing for Which he would be account- 
able; for the doctrine is, that God Would be unjust, if he should 
require any thing of us which we cannot do if we will, and 
make us accountable for the deficiency. No one need mourn 
over indwelling sin which he cannot eradicate and avoid at will^ 
for any such sin, any such law in his members, being beyond 
his control, is equally beyond all accountability; so that he has 
no need to cry out, " 0, wretched man that I am! Who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death?" No man has any 
concern with any dullness of soul, or hardness of heart, or 
worldly mindedness, which he cannot help — he need not repent 
of it, for it cannot be sin in him, according to this new gospel; 
and this follows from two fundamental principles of the new 
gospel: the one is, that all sin is voluntary, and that which is not 
voluntary is not sin; the other is, that God would be unjust 
to require any thing beyond what we can do, if we will. 

5th. There is no propriety in any man's praying for a new 
heart, or a good will, or for any grace of the Spirit; because he 
is able himself to exercise these graces, if he only be willing; 



( 66 ) 



and if he be not willing to have them, he ought not to pray for 
them. It would be awful hypocrisy, and mocking God, to pray 
for graces which he was unwilling to have. 

6th. It also follows, that there was no need of Christ's being 
sent to make an atonement, to render possible the salvation of 
any sinner; for any atonement which it would have been impos- 
sible for man to make for himself, it would have been unjust 
for God to require. If none could be required beyond what 
fallen man could have made, then there was no need of Christ's 
being sent to make one. It will avail nothing to plead that, al- 
though such an atonement, being an impossibility, could not 
have been required of fallen man, yet it could be required of 
his surety — of another, for him. To this plea it may be replied, 
if such an atonement could not have been required of fallen man,, 
because it would have been unjust to require such an impossi- 
bility, then it could no more have been required of Christ, the 
surety; for every one knows that the law that cannot exact any 
penalty from me, cannot exact it of my surety or friend on 
my account. It is puerile, like all the positions of the New Di- 
vinity, to suppose that the security can be holden where the 
principal could not be. There is no way to escape from the 
conclusion that the mission of Christ was unnecessary, if we adopt 
the New Divinity 

7 th. It follows, also, from the doctrine that " nothing can be 
required that we are unable to render," that there was no-need 
of the Holy Spirit's being sent to perform the work of sanctifi- 
cation in the sinner's soul, in order to his salvation; seeing that 
every sinner can sanctify his own heart, as far as Divine Justice 
can require; for no sanctification can be required, that is beyond 
the sinner's power; for this would be to require a natural impos- 
sibility, and consequently unjust. Neither is there any more 
necessity of the Spirit's being sent to make the sinner willing 
to obey God or come to Christ: for God could not damn him for 
want of a willingness that he could not work up for himself — for 
want of a willingness that was out of his power. So, also, the 
work of the Spirit is equally unnecessary in the salvation of 
a sinner, if the New Divinity be true. And it would be 
entirely consistent in a preacher, believing such a doctrine, to 
ridicule, from the pulpit, the idea of a sinner's dependence on 
the Divine Spirit for regenerating grace, by chiding his audi- 
ence in language like this: "Are you waiting for an electric 
shock to convert you?" 

8th. It also follows, that indwelling sin, remaining in the 
christian in opposition to his will — a law in his members, war- 
ring against the law of his mind — is impossible, for two rea- 
sons. One is, that when we are willing to do good, nothing 
can hinder us; nay, the commission of sin, Doctor Beecher says, 



( 67 ) 



is impossible. Since all sin is voluntary, all depravity lies ia 
the will. When the will is against sin, there is no lodging 
place for it in the soul. The other reason is, that if a princi- 
ple, or any thing back of voluntary exercises, could have a 
moral quality, yet we could not be accountable for it, because 
it would be involuntary ; and, if involuntary, then it would be 
what we are naturally unable to avoid; and then we could 
not be to blame — it eould not be reckoned as sin in us — it could 
not be sin at all, if unavoidable. 

^th. From this artiele in the New Divinity, that it is unjust 
to require any thing of us that we cannot do, it also follows, 
that the Unitarians are right in denying the atonement alleged 
■to have been made by Christ; for if that atonement was unne- 
cessary, then it is indeed incredible — it cannot be believed. 
Where is the man that can believe, that God would send his 
beloved Son, to be made a man of sorrows, to be persecuted, to 
he murdered, to make an atonement which was altogether un- 
necessary, and one which sinners could just as well have been 
saved without. If the New divinity then be true, the Unitari- 
ans cannot be wrong. 

10th. It also follows, that the Universalist's argument is a 
good one, which makes the word ' everlasting,' when applied to 
future punishment, mean only a limited duration; because we 
all have to confess, that the word is sometimes so used in the 
■scriptures. For to sustain the proposition that nothing can be 
required beyond the sinner's power, the accused and all the 
party have found it necessary, in supporting their system, to ar* 
gue that as the assertion of inability in the scriptures sometimes 
intends no more than inconvenience, unwillingness, or incon- 
gruity; therefore, it must always be so understood, when 
used in relation to moral agents' doing good. While we admit 
that the assertion of inability in the scriptures sometimes in- 
tends no more than above stated, being used in what, in her- 
menutics, is called an improper sense, or used in a way of ac- 
commodation; we deny that it is always so to be taken when 
used in reference to our moral exercises. This is what we de- 
ny, and what the accused affirms; which, if he be competent 
to be a father 1o the sons of the prophets, he must know to be 
an error on his part; because he cannot be ignorant that the 
assertion of inability in the scriptures is made where a willing- 
ness is affirmed in relation to men's moral exercises. And to 
wrest the scriptures, and make ' cannot ' into 6 will not,' to make 
the word of God contradict itself in the same sentence, is only 
worthy of an enemy, not of a friend. Inability is associated 
with willingness, when Joshua told Israel that they could not 
serve God, when they had told him that they were willing. 
Why did one speak of willingness and the other of ability, if 



( ea ) 



both meant the same thing? And who now is competent to 
know and to affirm, that when Joshua told the people that 
they could not serve the Lord, he only meant to tell them that 
they were unwilling to serve him? Inability is also associated 
with willingness in these scriptures, viz: "To will is present 
with me ; but how to perform that which is good, I find not." 
" When I would do good, evil is present with me." So that 
ye cannot do the good that ye would" To argue from a few 
instances in which the word is used in an improper sense, by 
way of accommodation, (upon the principle of all metaphors 
and allegories,) that it is never used in its original and pro- 
per sense, is to accede to the Universalis t the principle on 
which he makes the word everlasting intend only a limited du- 
ration, because it is sometimes so used ; and it isalso to concede 
to the Unitarians, that as the term God is sometimes applied to 
kings and prophets, in a finite sense, that therefore it is always to 
be so taken when applied to Jesus Christ. The accused, from 
his own principles, is precluded from replying, and must surren- 
der to heretics the eternity of future punishment, and the divinity 
of our Lord. 

11th. From the doctrine that it is unjust for God to require of 
fallen man what he is unable to render, it follows that there is 
no grace in the gospel. For if a satisfaction to Divine Justice 
which the sinner himself could render, was all that God could 
require; then the, atonement made by the Son of God does not 
make the salvation of sinners any more possible than it would 
have been, without that atonement. For the sinner, without that 
atonement, would be able to make as good an atonement as he 
would be able to make with it, and a just God, on the principles 
of the accused, could demand no more ; so that he is no better 
off now, on the ground of an atonement to render his salvation 
possible, than he would have been if Christ had made none. — 
And if his condition is not altered by the sufferings of Christ, 
where is the grace of the gospel? 

12th. It also follows, that the propitiation of Christ, according 
to this New Divinity, is rather an expedient to extricate the 
Lawgiver from a dilemma, than a display of grace* to man. For 
if impossibilities, like those required by Divine Justice, may 
not be required of sinners, then they had no need of that propi- 
tiation — it does not concern them — they could not be adjudged 
to punishment for want of a propitiation that was out of their 
power ; neither could the Judge refuse them his favor, nor a 
right to the happiness of Heaven, because they could not per- 
form impossibilities. They w T ould be safe at any rate. And if 
God would have to refuse them admittance into Heaven on the 
ground of incongruity, they being altogether unfit for the abode 
of the holy and blessed, where no unclean thing can enter j and 



( 69 ) 



if it would derogate from the glory of his justice to connive at 
their sin by taking them to Heaven in their pollution ; then it 
must follow, that the Lawgiver himself was in a dilemma, which 
the propitiation of Christ was an expedient to get him out of, 
and contains no grace towards fallen man, for lie would have 
been safe. He could neither have been sent to Hell, nor refused 
admittance into Heaven, for want of power to perform impossi- 
bilities. 

13th. The doctrine "that God cannot require, in order to our 
salvation, what it is impossible for us to perform," amounts to a 
denial of regeneration ; for God requires our regeneration, and 
tells us that we cannot be saved without it. Then it is some- 
thing that we ourselves can perform, for God could not other- 
wise require it. And if we make it thus to be something that we 
can do, we might as well deny it at once ; for then it is not a 
work of God raising the dead sinner to spiritual life — not a new 
creation — not a sanctifying work of the Spirit upon the soul, in 
which the subject must be passive ; but it is only the work of 
the sinner himself yielding the consent of his will, when the 
subject is so well argued that he becomes convinced — just as he 
yields consent, when he becomes convinced, in the ordinary 
affairs of life. This is not the regeneration of the gospel, but a 
denial of it. 

14th. It follows, also, that those teachers are right who assure 
their congregations that they can have a revival if they will — for 
all rests with men, not with God. They themselves, in the ex- 
ercise of their own powers and faculties, can do all that God re- 
quires. And those teachers are right who assure their congre- 
gations that God would convert sinners if they would let him ; 
and thus exalt the creature above the Creator, and make the ef- 
ficacy of his grace to depend on the power and will of man. — 
All this is dreadful, truly ; but it is consistent with the premises. 
So, also, is Doctor Emmons's sermon consistent with the same 
premises, in which he attempts to prove that men have power 
to prevent God from executing his decrees and from accom- 
plishing his purposes. This predicate of Doctor Emmons is 
true and unavoidable, if the premises are true ; for, having a 
little more sagacity than some others, he perceives that if the 
possession of natural faculties constitutes power or ability to 
employ them as we will, then it must follow that Herod had 
power to destroy the infant Jesus, and could actually have ac- 
complished it, although God had decreed otherwise. The Ro- 
man emperor, likewise, could have rebuilt Jerusalem, the pre- 
dictions of Christ and the power of God notwithstanding. The 
forty Jews who bound themselves under a curse to kill Paul, 
had power to accomplish it, even though Omnipotence stood in 
their way. preserving him. Such carnal reasoners get bewildered 



( 70 ) 



by leaning to their own understanding and to the wisdom that 
is not from above, and utterly forget that creatures are perfectly 
dependent and powerless ; that the creature has no kind of pow- 
er in the smallest degree to good, beyond the power and will of 
God, who holds his hand, nerves his arm, and gives him every 
breath he draws, as these scriptures show: " We are not suffi- 
cient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our suf- 
ficiency is of God — for in him we live, move, and have our be- 
ing. The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all 
thy ways, hast thou not glorified. A man's goings are of the 
Lord. Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except 
it were given thee from above. It is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God, that showeth mercy. The 
race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor success 
to men of skill. Without me, ye can do nothing." Many are 
now in the same mistake with Pilate on this subject. He 
thought that he had power to do what he pleased with his pris- 
oner, and therefore admonished Christ thus: " Know est thou 
not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release 
thee?" Many in this day have the same ignorance and self- 
sufficiency, and do not know that a man's goings are of the 
Lord; that we cannot take a step, lift a hand, or draw a breath, 
without Almighty power enabling us at the moment ; and being 
ignorant, are boasting of their power, like Pilate. 

15th. It also follows that those scriptures are untrue which rep- 
resent christians as unable to do the good that they are willing to 
do. As the following, " for what I would, that do I not," "but 
what I hate, that do I" — " for to will is present with me, but how 
to perform that which is good, I find not," — " when I would do 
good, evil is present with me," — " ye cannot do the things that 
ye would." But the heresy of natural ability maintains that, as 
we have the power to be holy, whenever we become willing to 
be so, the commission of sin is impossible. And yet, all these 
scriptures expressly declare the contrary, and declare that the 
inability remains, even when the will is to do good. And this 
is in accordance with christian experience ; which shows the 
christian that he cannot at will command all that repentance, 
trust, love and forgiveness, that he wishes and tries to have. — 
But these scriptures must all be false, and the christian's expe- 
rience too, if the new divinity be true. And so Dr. Beecher, 
we think, must esteem them. For how is it possible for him, 
with his sentiments, to believe that the Holy Spirit has recorded 
the truth upon this subject, where hf declares that, the contend- 
ing principles of flesh and spirit in christians, are so out of the 
control of the will, that they cannot do the things that they will. 
Such is the dire effect of heresy upon the intellect, as to make 
its votaries believe sentiments, that contradict the word of God ; 



( 71 ) 



and yet feel sure that they are right. They can be so bold as to 
assert that all depravity lies in the will, that there is no hindrance 
to holiness, but in the will, when the scriptures above quoted, 
with many others, stand before their faces, proclaiming by Di- 
vine authority, the contrary. And yet, they are not afraid. — 
Such is the mania of error, and against the pretection and en- 
couragement of it, in the church of Christ, we are constrained 
to enter our earnest protest. 

16th. It also follows from this'doctrine of ability, that sin is 
rather a misfortune, which God is under obligations to redress, 
than a crime deserving punishment for its demerit alone. The 
new divinity denies the right of God to punish sinners, unless 
he has put a way of escape in their power. If sinners are not 
able to repent and embrace the Gospel, it teaches that God has 
no right to punish them for their sins; which is as much as to 
say, that sin alone is not a crime deserving of any punishment. It 
is a crime only, when God has provided a way of escape, and 
they come to understand it, and refuse to avail themselves of it; 
then, and then only, do sinners become deserving of punish- 
ment. It is then, and then only, that sin becomes sin. This 
new Divinity boldly demands of God the possession of power, 
in the offspring of Adam to avoid sin previous to its commission, 
and also a power to avoid the penalty after its commission ; or 
it denies the justice of God in its punishment. Imputed sin, and 
a sinful nature, can amount to no more, according to Dr. Beecher, 
than a mere bias or tendency to evil, and leading to the certainty 
of contracting guilt by actual sin, which is representing sins 
only as misfortunes ! For he denies the justice of our being 
punished for them, and maintains with Pelagius, that nothing is 
punishable but actual sin, but voluntary transgression. Origi- 
nal sin, then, is only a misfortune, and not a crime. And if the 
sinner may not justly be punished for actual sin alone, without be- 
ing endowed with ability to avoid the penalty by repenting and 
believing, then actual sin is not a crime for which God can just- 
ly punish the transgressor. The crime does not attach until the 
door of escape from the penalty has been set open before him, 
and he has refused to enter and pass it. Until then, his trans- 
gression was no crime, and perhaps not even a misfortune. 

17th. From this doctrine of ability, it also follows that it is a 
correct doctrine, that corporal punishment ought to be applied 
to impenitent children, to make them submit to God, as they 
are made to submit to their parents. Regeneration is no more 
necessary in the one case, than it is in the other — the principle of 
both is the same — one is just as practicable and just- as much a 
duty as the other : for the child is as able to do one, as he is to do 
the other, as both depend alone on the will, not on the grace of 
God ; but alone on the will. The principle of the Inquisition, 



( 72 ) 



also, was correct. It was only mis-applied. The benevolent 
part of society have no right to leave men voluntarily depraved 
and obstinate, to sink to eternal ruin, so long as it is true that all 
the difficulty lies in their will, and that those who will not yield 
to pursuasion, might be reduced by power and pain. If all the 
sinner's obduracy, all his depravity, is voluntary, and if it all de- 
pends for its existence, alone, on the unsanctified will of the im- 
penitent man, why may it not be made to yield in a moment, 
when the terrors and tortures which are in the power of society, 
shall be employed for that purpose, to bend and bow that will ? 
Those parents, therefore, deserve commendation and imitation, 
who have applied corporal punishment to make their children 
submit to God ; those only are in fault, who neglect to do so. 

18th. From the doctrine of our ability to do whatever can 
be required of us, it follows, that the work of the Spirit in our 
regeneration and sanctifieation, is a small work, for it is no other 
or greater work in us than we ourselves could have done if we 
would ; so that it may well be considered a small work, if one 
who is "carnal," " without strength," and "dead in trespasses 
and sins," could do it; and not a glorious work of new-creating 
power, of raising the dead to spiritual life. Thus the new di- 
vinity degrades the glorious work of the Holy Spirit in man's 
redemption. And it does the same respecting the work of the 
Son ; for it follows also that what he has done, is only what we 
could have done, because no more could have been required. 
It represents the provisions of the gospel as only supplying the 
indolence, reluctance and carelessness of sinners, by doing that 
for them which they could sufficiently have done for themselves, 
but would not do — -did not care to do ; which represents the 
Author of gospel grace as giving to the rich and working for the 
indolent ; as if a debtor was in prison who was rich, having 
ready money sufficient to discharge his debt and procure his 
liberty, but would not use it, and another should volunteer his 
good offices, pay the debt, and release the prisoner. In such a 
case, who would admire or applaud the generosity of the action ? 
What noble compassion and generosity to the poor would it af- 
ford ? Or it may be compared to an industrious man who should 
enter, uncalled for, into the field of his neighbor, who was able 
to reap his own field, but too indolent to do it. What noble 
kindness would there be in such an action? Would not both 
cases exhibit a disregard of the inhibition, " Cast not your pearls 
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet" ? 
Whether such a representation of the power and grace of the 
Divine Spirit, in quickening dead sinners and raising them to 
spiritual life, creating them in Christ Jesus, and translating them 
into the kingdom of God, be justly honoring that work, or de- 
preciating it and teaching another gospel, we have been called 



( 73 ) 



upon to decide ; and against the decision that has been given, 
we protest. 

19th. From the doctrine that sinners have full ability, by the 
exercise of their natural faculties only, to turn their hearts to 
holy exercises, when they are only persuaded to will to do so, 
it follows that there is no depravity in the soul. We know that 
men are often persuaded, in the common affairs of life, to change 
their minds and their conduct, from an influence ab extra, and 
without any moral change ; for in these cases no moral change 
is necessary ; for which reason such changes are practicable. If 
such cases represent regeneration, as according to the new di- 
vinity they do — for the Spirit, it is maintained, does nothing lo 
the soul, but presents gospel truth in its proper pungent aspect 
and application, by which means alone it brings the will to con- 
sent — then it follows, that their scheme does not admit of any 
moral depravity in the soul. It does not admit of any thing's 
being there to hinder the proper effect of gospel truth, but a mis- 
take that the sinner may be reasoned out of, and which he ac- 
tually is reasoned and persuaded out of, and which process con- 
stitutes the whole of regeneration. 

20th. The christian that holds to the doctrine of the accused, 
that to be able and unwilling to obey God is the only possible way 
in which a free agent can become deserving of condemnation 
and punishment, must deny his own experience. For his expe- 
rience has shown him, a thousand times, that he could not be as 
humble, as prayerful, as content, as forgiving, and as full of love 
to enemies and to all men, as he ought to be, and as he longs, 
desires, and prays to be ; that when he would do good evil was 
present with him ; because there was a law in his members war- 
ring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity 
to the law of sin, which was in his members ; and has made him 
cry out, " wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from 
the body of this death?" "My leanness riling up in me, 
beareth witness to my face ;" and has made him feel the senti- 
ment, when he has sung, " Here on my heart the burden lies," 
and when he has sung, 

" I would but can't repent, 
Though I endeavor oft; 
This stony heart will not relent, 
Till Jesus make it soft." 

When intelligent men can be carried away with an error, 
which not only contradicts the word of God, but contradicts also 
the daily experience of the christian, we are constrained to con- 
clude that it must be ascribed either to the want of christian ex- 
perience or to the mania of error. 

21st. The doctrine of " plenary power" — "the full ability of 
the sinner to comply with the terms of salvation" — incurs the 



( 74 ) 



fearful penalty denounced in Revelations xxii. 18, " For I testify 
unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this 
book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book." This doctrine 
of ability is never asserted in the scriptures. It is not taught 
there that sinners have " plenary powers/' "full ability to com- 
ply with the terms of salvation" — " that the sinner is able and 
only unwilling to obey God" — " that all sin is voluntary" — and 
that " the moment the ability of obedience ceases, the commis- 
sion of sin becomes impossible." The Holy Spirit did not deem 
these doctrines necessary to convict the sinner of sin ; but the 
accused takes the liberty of differing from the mind of the Spirit 
on this subject, maintaining them as fundamental and necessary, 
and saying, "'that ability commensurate with the requirement, 
is the everlasting foundation of the moral government of God." 
But this doctrine which the accused lays down, upon his own 
authority, as the everlasting foundation of the divine moral 
government, is denied in the scriptures to be such a foundation ; 
for God has not laid it, and other foundation can no man lay. 
But this doctrine of ability is not only thus constructively denied 
in the scriptures, but it is expressly denied in terms. They ex- 
pressly assert the doctrine of inability to be true. " No man 
can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him." 
"Without me ye can do nothing." " The preparation of the 
heart in man is of the Lord." " We are not sufficient of our- 
selves to think any thing as of ourselves; our sufficiency is of 
God." " It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." 
"A man's heart deviseth his way ; but the Lord directeth his 
steps." " The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the 
strong." " Ye cannot do the things that ye would." — Such is 
the light which the scriptures shed upon this subject. The bold- 
ness of the accused, in this controversy with the Spirit, is fearful. 
The religion contemplated by the accused is evidently a different 
one from that contemplated in the scriptures and in the stand- 
ards of our church. The one is too much consistent with the 
carnal mind ; the other is consistent with humility of soul. The 
one strengthens the hands of the wicked, and puffs him up with 
self-sufficiency; encourages him to say that God is unjust in his 
requirements, if we can not do the things that we would : the 
other teaches us, that we are as helpless and dependent as clay- 
in the hands of the potter ; that without God we can do nothing; 
that we are as naturally unable to render what divine justice re- 
quires, as the man was who owed his lord ten thousand talents 
and had nothing to pay ; and yet the inability of bankruptcy 
was no excuse ; he was ordered to be sold, his wife and his 
children ; — -that we are naturally unable to turn our hearts to good 
without the special drawings of God ;— -so the blind and helpless 



( 75 ) 



came to Christ for eyes and for aid ; — so the disciples wrought 
with all their power to overcome the winds and the waves, and 
bring their vessel to land ; and when they ascertained that they 
could not effect it, they came to Christ, crying, « Lord save us, 
we perish ;" — and like Peter, who, finding himself sinking, not- 
withstanding what he could do, begged the almighty power of 
Christ to do for him what he could not do for himself. The re- 
ligion of the Bible teaches us that we are poor and needy, help- 
less, guilty, without strength ; that we are like condemned crU 
minals, having no way of escape in our power ; but, knowing 
that there is a way of escape in God, we look up and cry, " God 
be merciful to us sinners and all depends upon his power and 
grace, whether he save or not ; — that no part of the blessing of 
salvation is in our power. And although it is as impossible for 
us to sanctify our hearts, or command his grace, as to create a 
world, yet we are taught to feel that all this is right with God. 
We would not reply against him, nor charge him foolishly, nor 
say, why doth he yet find fault ? We, and we only, are vile, and 
deserving of that wrath from which God only can save us, as 
well by his power as by his grace. This religion the accused 
seems to be ignorant of, as a reality to be sought and cultivated ; 
but he knows it only to treat it as a visionary phantom, as " fool- 
ishness." And we are unwilling to surrender it ; hence this 
protest. But what is proposed to us in the place of it ! A tem- 
per to reply against God, and say that the Most High is unjust 
if he makes us accountable for Adam's sin, and for a corrupt and 
sinful nature lying back of exercises, and for a law in our mem- 
bers leading us so into captivity to the law of sin, that when we 
would do good, evil is present with us ; — a temper and boldness 
to say that if there is in us a law, a carnal nature, so warring 
against our will and power to do good, that we " cannot do the 
good that we would," that then God is unjust in making us ac- 
countable. And yet that we are all under that inability, is a 
truth to which we have all borne testimony in our ordination 
vows ; the doctrine we cannot now deny, without charging our- 
selves with perjury in making those vows. 

22nd. The dogma of the accused, that " the full ability of the 
sinner to comply with the terms of salvation," is necessary to 
accountability, and that " without it the commission of sin is im- 
possible," is both gratuitous and absurd. It is really puerile. 
If there is depravity in the soul of a wicked man which he can- 
not eradicate or avoid — a law of sin within him, so that he can- 
not turn his heart to holy affections by an act of his will, and 
regenerate himself at will, is he therefore not a sinner — not a 
wicked man? If he is constantly committing sin with a de- 
praved nature and a wicked heart, does his inability to turn his 
heart to God change the fact, and make it a truth that he does 



( 76 ) 

not commit sin ? Is it so, when a person only sins, and really 
sins, and can only sin, that therefore he cannot sin — that the 
commission of sin is impossible ? This is the New Divinity ar- 
gument, and a denial of the admitted principle of identity. We 
are grieved and ashamed that it should be necessary, in an or- 
thodox church, and in this age of light and of the boasted march 
of mind, to confute such absurd ity. Why, instead of marching 
forward, these sons of light are retrograding. They are at least 
a thousand years behind the age in which they live. The dog- 
ma, that " because a sinner is not possessed of a power to re- 
generate himself, or turn his heart to good, therefore the com- 
mission of sin is impossible," denies identity, and asserts, that if 
a thing cannot make itself what it is not, then it is not what it 
is — if a sinner cannot make himself a saint, then he is not a sin- 
ner ; he is under no accountability ; the commission of sin is 
impossible; he has no need of a Savior: and all this is because 
he is so great, a sinner ; sin is so deep in his soul, that it rules 
him ; he cannot purify himself from it ; therefore he is pure ; 
he has no sin. Just as if it were asserted^ that a goat is not a 
goat, because he cannot become a sheep. We protest against 
giving the sanction of the Presbytery to such absurdity. 

23d. The carnal doctrine of human ability decoys carnal men 
into the church — foolish virgins into the kingdom of God. 
Those who are carnal, unhumbled, and unprepared to "receive 
the kingdom of heaven as little children," are delighted more 
with doctrines that are carnal than with those that are soul-hum- 
bling ; and they naturally love the men most who please their 
carnal taste. And when they are told that there is nothing ne- 
cessary to secure their salvation but what they can do for them- 
selves ; that they have only to resolve upon it, determine to do 
it, or will the thing, and it is done ; they are encouraged to g ) 
about it in their own strength ; and when they become excited 
under the pressure of protracted means of excitement, and re- 
salve, with carnal heart, that they will give up to become reli- 
gious, they then believe, according to their teaching, that this is 
to be religious — that the thing is done. Then their raptures rise, 
like the joy of the stony-ground hearers. God has taught us to 
understand it by the parable of the sower. The seed that fell in 
rocky places sprung up quickly, because it had no root in the 
soil. It is so with carnal christians, converted by a carnal doc- 
trine. They come forward quickly, are caressed, encouraged, 
and hastened into the church, and lulled into fatal security. But 
the object of their deceiver is accomplished. They then, being 
in the church, make their way into the eldership, and into the 
ministry, while destitute of grace and ignorant of the truth. It 
is natural to expect that such men will dishonor the church that 
is encumbered with them. No wonder that such christians 
should practise all kinds of unfaithfulness and dishonesty. 



( 77 ) 



24th. The belief of human ability, as taught by Dr. Beecher 
and the New School, renders the salvation of sinners impossible. 
While the sinner remains under the conviction that he has ability 
to turn his heart to repentance, to faith, and to Christ, he never 
can be saved. He cannot come to Christ as a lost and helpless 
sinner, crying, Lord save me, I perish — he cannot approach the 
mercy seat in humble and confessed dependence, like the blind 
man of the gospel, calling on the Lord Jesus, thou Son of David, 
have mercy on me. If he comes to Christ as one possessed of 
self-sufficiency must come, feeling that he does not really need 
any thing — for he has full ability to do every thing that can be 
required of him, in order to his salvation — he will be rejected : 
for the whole have no need of a physician, but they that are 
sick ; Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to re- 
pentance ; for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the 
humble. Such is the native pride of the carnal mind, that if you 
make a sinner believe that he has this ability in himself, he 
never will, he never can, come like a needy and humble beggar 
to the gate of mercy- — never can he come, as wretched, misera- 
ble, poor and blind and naked, to buy of Christ gold tried in the 
fire that he may be rich, and white raiment that the shame of 
his nakedness may not appear. So it was with the lukewarm 
Laodiceans. They had their carnal views, and this was the ac- 
cusation against them : " Because thou sayest, I am rich, and in- 
creased with goods, and have need of nothing ; and knowest not 
that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and 
naked." With their riches they could not receive the alms of 
Christ. If a man were sick with a virulent disease which he 
could not prescribe for nor cure, and should be made to believe 
that he could cure himself, and be thus prevented from calling a 
physician, his death would be the consequence. Convince a 
sinner so about his ability to obtain salvation, and although the 
bait will take, and you will get him into the church by the flat- 
tery ; yet you insure the damnation of his soul, unless he become 
convinced of the falsehood and deception practised on him. 
When he becomes fully convinced of his helplessness and ina- 
bility to repent, believe, or turn his heart to God, without special 
grace enabling him, then one obstacle in the way of his salvation 
is taken away ; for a man in the water and finding himself una- 
ble to rescue himself from drowning, looks away from himself 
for help ; so Peter cried to Jesus because he could not himself 
stand on the water. No one can receive the kingdom of heaven 
unless he receive it as a little child. Infidelity, while it remains, 
is an insuperable bar to salvation. So is this arrogant self-suffi- 
ciency ; for both are the direct opposites to that state of mind 
which consists with coming to Christ, and which must co-exist 
with it. 



( 78 ) 



25th. The doctrine of natural ability is predicated upon the 
fact, that we have all the natural faculties of moral agents ; con- 
sequently moral ability is predicated upon the fact, that we have 
all the moral faculties of moral agents, and moral inability must 
be predicated upon the fact, that sinners have not those moral 
faculties. If moral inability, by consistency in reasoning, be 
the same thing as the want of moral faculties, then it follows, 
that to be destitute of moral ability, is to be destitute of moral 
agency. And it remains yet to be shown, why moral ability 
constituted by the possession of moral faculties, is not as neces 
sary to accountability and to moral agency, as natural ability, 
constituted by the possession of natural faculties. For if the pos- 
session of natural faculties constitutes natural ability, then it can- 
not be denied that possession of moral faculties constitutes moral 
ability. Neither can it be denied, that the latter is as necessary 
to moral agency, as the former; and then we are brought to this 
result, that moral inability destroys free agency and accounta- 
bility. We perceive, therefore, that the New School doctrine 
respecting ability, destroys moral agency. It admits natural 
agency that results from natural ability; and denies moral agency, 
that can only result from moral ability. It only concedes to man 
natural agency, like that of a brute animal, but moral power or 
ability it denies him. For if the possessor of moral faculties, 
may, notwithstanding, be under a moral inability, then it follows 
unavoidably, that the possessor of natural faculties, may be under 
a natural impossibility to employ them aright. The truth is ; we 
think, that there is only one ability in a moral agent, and that any 
being that is able to commit sin, is thereby a moral agent, even 
although he be not able to turn his heart to good. A man with 
the natural faculty of speech, may be unable to speak in the He- 
brew or Syriac. So a man with a wicked heart, and able to 
employ both his natural and moral faculties to the commission of 
sin, may yet be unable to employ them in actual holy exercises. 
His moral ability is exactly equal to his natural ability, in re- 
spect to either holiness or sin ; for no man has more than one 
ability. While both natural and moral faculties are necessary 
to moral agency and accountability, yet the possession of both, 
does not constitute any kind of ability in a depraved being to 
change his depraved nature into a holy one, or to have exercises 
that are contrary to the principles of his nature, and involving a 
holiness which the case excludes. A man must have a nature 
either good or evil, previous to the exercises appropriate to either 
of these qualities ; for so we are taught by our Lord, in the plain 
declaration, that a good man out of the good treasure of his heart 
bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil 
treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things. The distinction 
then, between natural and moral ability, is a delusion bewilder- 



( 79 ) 



ing men, and an error which hinders the progress of mental sci- 
ence, destroys the simplicity of the gospel, and compels men to 
adopt another gospel. If faculties constitute ability, then moral 
faculties constitute moral ability. 

The method so often attempted to evade one scripture asser- 
tion of inability, by supposing that when our Lord told some of 
his hearers that they were unwilling to come to him, that they 
might have life, and when he informed another audienceat another 
time, of another truth, that no man could come to him, unless 
drawn by the Father, he only intended one and the same thing, 
is altogether gratuitous, and cannot be proved ; for who is com- 
petent to amend and correct the doctrine of Jesus, and put will 
not, in the place oican not ? If he did not mean what he said, 
how could his hearers be edified ? If the trumpet give an un- 
certain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle ? But the 
soul-humbling doctrine of Christ on the sinner's helplessness 
or inability, was hated then as it is now ; and it is written, that 
when Christ declared it, " from that time, many of his disciples 
went back, and walked no more with him." The pride of the 
carnal heart revolts at our being dependant beggars on sovereign 
grace, as a criminal going to execution is dependant upon the 
government for pardon, deliverance and life; and at being in the 
hands of God, as clay in the hands of the potter. The doctrine 
of the sinner's inability to have holy exercises without the grace 
of the Spirit, is one of the plainest doctrines in the scriptures, and 
for aught we can perceive, one of the precious, useful and neces- 
sary doctrines. Without a knowledge of it, and a deep feeling of 
it, we do not believe that any soul comes to Christ, or receives 
salvation ; for God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the 
humble. 

We protest, because the doctrine so strenuously maintained by 
the accused — that all depravity is voluntary, that nothing in the 
sinner is out of the way but the will, and that nothing but the 
will is acted upon in regeneration — renders the regeneration of 
infants impossible ; for they have no understanding, conscience 
and choice for gospel truths to address, and thus affect their will. 
Their will is not perverted, for they have no will about Divine 
things. Nothing in them, then, is out of the way ; and therefore 
it is impossible for the Spirit to have any thing to do with them 
in the way of sanctification or regeneration. If the Spirit re- 
generate or sanctify them, it will be a work upon the soul itself, 
in which the subject cannot be voluntary, but must be passive ; 
and this would prove that there was something out of the way 
that is not voluntary — something which lies back of volition, 
from which all actual transgressions proceed. But this view is 
exceedingly offensive to many. They deny any sinful nature 
prior to actual exercise. If they be correct, then dying infants 



(80) 



go out of the world as they came into it. If they came into it 
without either sin or holiness, without any moral character, they 
must go out so. Doctor Taylor of New Haven, saw this conse- 
quence of the doctrine that all sin is voluntary, and that all sin 
lies in the will — in which he agrees with Doctor Beecher — and 
he seems to have felt the difficulty respecting infants, and supposes 
that as infants have a certainty of sinning in this world or the 
next, "without the supernatural interference of God to prevent it," 
something must be done for them to fit them for Heaven — 
something which is neither regeneration, sanctification, nor par- 
don — something which he seems to be unable to name or de- 
scribe. Doctor Emmons— who agrees with both in the senti- 
ment that all sin is voluntary, and that all depravity lies in the 
will — also saw the difficulty, viz: the impossibility of infant 
regeneration ; and has suggested the possibility that the souls of 
infants are annihilated, if the} 7 die in infancy and before they 
become capable of actual sin ; which period of actual sinning, in 
his opinion, may not arrive until the child is several years of 
age. According to this hypothesis, the infant dies like the 
beasts that perish, and has no pre-eminence over the brute. 
The friends of truth have cause to be alarmed, for the progress 
of error is downward. The commencement of error, like that 
of strife, is as when one letteth out water; the termination of its 
destructive results cannot be foreseen ; but we know that it is 
written, "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, 
deceiving and being deceived." The consequences of admitting 
one false doctrine are what is taught in the proverb, " He that 
tells one lie, must tell twenty more, to make that good." So 
he that embraces one false doctrine, must adopt many more to 
sustain that one. 

We protest against the acquittal of the accused, because it 
implied an indifference to gross and destructive error. If it be 
attempted to justify the acquittal and the toleration of the errors 
of the accused, by saying that Edwards, Scott, Henry, and others, 
maintained the doctrine of the sinner's natural ability, and they 
were tolerated in the various churches allowed to be orthodox ; 
it may be replied that they did so partially, and only partially ; 
and while they did so, it is clear that they held to original sin 
as really sin, and deserving God's wrath and curse. They 
maintained the doctrine of imputation, and the doctrine of 
sinful nature, and of the direct agency of the Spirit in regenera- 
tion. Edwards says, " When Christ had finished his labors and 
sufferings, and rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, he 
entered into rest — delivered by his own sufferings from our im- 
puted guilt, and acquitted and justified of the Father on his 
resurrection." " As he was justified when he rose from the 
dead, and as he was made free from our guilt, which he, had as 



( 81 ) 



our surety, so believers are justified in him and through him." 
That Edwards, besides believing the doctrine of imputation as 
above shown, believed also in the direct agency of the Spirit in 
regeneration, and in the inability of the sinner to regenerate or 
sanctify himself, may be inferred from the following quotations 
from his twenty sermons, pp. 250, 261. 

" But this spiritual knowledge spoken of in the text, is what 
God is the author of, and none else ; he reveals it, and flesh and 
blood reveals it not. He imparts this knowledge immediately, 
not making use of an}^ intermediate natural causes, as he does in 
other knowledge," "That due sense of the heart ivherein 
this light formally consists, is immediately from the Spirit 
of God.' 7 " How rational is it to suppose that God, however he 
has left meaner goods and lower gifts to second causes, and in 
some sort in their power, yet should reserve this most excellent, 
divine, and important of all communications in his own hands, 
to be bestowed immediately by himself, as a thing too great for 
second causes to be concerned in." " It is rational to suppose 
that it should be beyond a man's power to obtain this knowledge 
and light by the mere strength of natural reason ; for it is not a 
thing that belongs to reason to see the beauty and loveliness of 
spiritual things ; it is not a speculative thing, but depends on 
the sense of the heart." 

In these quotations, it is evident that by " spiritual light and 
knowledge," he means sanctification ; for he calls it the sense of 
the heart, and affirms that it is by the immediate agency of God ; 
and he affirms that it is beyond a man's power to obtain it. And 
it has not yet been shown that one of the old respectable writers 
held to or asserted the full ability of the sinner to comply with 
the terms of salvation. It is rather to be concluded that when 
they affirmed the sinner's natural ability, they intended no more 
than that the sinner possesess all the natural faculties of a moral 
agent, which every man admits to be essential to accountability. 
This was a mistake only — a mistake of a word, calling the pos- 
session of natural faculties the possession of natural ability, with- 
out becoming so entirely bewildered by the confusion occasioned 
by that wrong use of the word, as has befallen some of their 
professed admirers. These admirers, now, do not only believe 
that the sinner has natural faculties, but they believe that he has 
" plenary powers " — "full ability " to do the works of sanc- 
tification, by the exertion of his own natural faculties alone, and 
without the grace of the Spirit. They now believe that the im- 
putation of Adam's sin to his posterity is nonsense ; that neither 
a depraved or sinful nature is possible ; that there is no deprav- 
ity in the soul itself, nor in any faculty, but the will. The ar- 
gument, therefore, that some urge for the toleration of all these 
real corruptions, because of the toleration of some who were not 



( 82 ) 



made " offenders for a word," is unworthy of any regard. We 
are not aware that any of the fathers quoted by the accused be- 
lieved a doctrine any thing like his. We are not aware that 
doctrines like his have been tolerated in the Church, previous to 
the present generation. Neither are we aware that a man of 
note, of any denomination, until this age, ever believed such 
doctrines as Doctor Beecher believes, except Pelagius and his 
followers ; for who, besides Pelagius and the wise men that fol- 
lowed, ever taught " that all depravity is voluntary, and that 
all sin lies in the will," and that consequently there can be no 
imputation of our sins to Christ, or of his righteousness to us? 
That a depraved nature cannot exist without voluntary agency; 
thus denying a corrupt nature conveyed from our first parents? 
That <e it is practicable for all men, in the regular exercise of the 
powers and faculties given to man as an accountable creature, to 
put forth holy exercises "? Thus denying the need of grace,* 
and maintaining that a sinner,with a carnal heart and will, can orig- 
inate holy exercises without the grace of God. Arminius himself 
never departed so far. Were such the doctrines of Henry, Bel- 
lamy, Edwards, Witherspoon, and Scott? We think not. We 
think they would pronounce them heresy. They believed that 
the possession of the natural and moral faculties was necessary 
to moral agency, and so do we 5 and whatever ability is consti- 
tuted by the possession of all these faculties, we concede. But now 
men who have a strong bias to Arminian and Pelagian errors, 
have become bewildered by the misuse of the term ability, using 
it to signify the possession of faculties, the disposition or wil- 
lingness of the mind, while the word cannot properly mean 
either of those things j but being so misused, will mislead those 
unskilful persons that thus misemploy it. When they have 
become thus bewildered, they seem to think that they are doing 
God service by slandering the orthodox, caricaturing their senti- 
ments ; representing them as destroying the elements of account- 
ability, reducing the sinner to a block of granite, and as " doing 
more to wrap in sackcloth the Sun of Righteousness/' and pre- 
vent the salvation of sinners, than all heretics besides ; and re- 
presenting them as being so ignorant as " to need that some one 
should teach them which be the first principles of the oracles of 
God." All, all this for no other crime than being Presbyterians 
—only for honestl}' believing what their reviler has sworn to 
be true, viz: that we are passive in regeneration, until we are 
quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit ; that in regenera- 
tion we are enabled as well as made willing to obey God ; that 
in our fallen and unregenerate state, we are disabled, as well 
as indisposed to obey him ; and that we are nevertheless entire- 
ly accountable : that Adam was sothe federal head and repre- 
sentative of his posterity, and his act was so imputed to them \ 



( 83 ) 



that they sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgres- 
sion ; and that we are born with a corrupt nature — are degene- 
rate plants of a strange vine — are by nature the children of 
wrath — have a nature which is in itself sinful, and which ren- 
ders us deserving of God's wrath and curse. These are the 
plain doctrines of our Standards, to which the accused is a 
pledged adherent. If he believes that "these Standards are 
true, every sentence and every word true," that they contain 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; then why 
is he opposing on every hand and reviling those who agree with 
him in believing them? If he believes these d octrines, as he declares 
that he does, then his sermons are imbued with them — they 
characterize, enliven and adorn every page. If these doctrines 
are not found in his sermons, then he does not believe them, and 
his warm professions of attachment to our Standards are not sin- 
cere. If the accused believed the creed which he has professed, 
how could he say, " No other obstruction to the success of the 
gospel, is there so great as the possession of the public mind with 
the belief of the natural and absolute inability of unconverted 
men. It has done more, I verily believe, to wrap in sackcloth 
the Sun of Righteousness, and to perpetuate the shadow of 
death on those who might have been rejoicing in his light, than 
all errors beside." This is a heavy charge against his brethren, 
and against his Confession of Faith. If we who believe the ina- 
bility of unconverted men, are doing more by our doctrine to 
dishonor God, and ruin the souls of men, than all the errors of 
Infidels, Universalists and Unitarians are doing, we ought not 
to be in the ministry, no one should acknowledge us as minis- 
ters, or bid us God speed. If we are worthy of our office, then 
he who is an accuser of the brethren, and a slanderer of the 
gospel ministry, is not worthy of it. And yet he was fully ac- 
quitted, dismissed without the shadow of a reproof, completely 
justified, and in effect told to continue these wrongs. We 
therefore protest against an act of Presbytery that has such a 
bearing. 

We protest against that acquittal, because, if the authority of 
Doctor Bellamy were of so much weight as to be worthy of quo- 
tation, in his sermon on Dependence and Free Agency,* then 
by that authority the accused ought to have been silenced; for, 
if all sin is voluntary, then there is no sin by imputation ; and 
if we have no imputed sin, we can have no imputed righteous- 
ness. Of the great importance of this doctrine, Bellamy says, 
" It is plain and evident from facts, that Adam was considered 
and dealt with under the capacity of a public head ; and that 
death, natural, spiritual, and eternal, were included in the threat- 



* Pages 28, 34, 



( 84 ) 



ening ; for all his posterity are evidently dealt with just as if that 
had been the case. They are born spiritually dead, as has been 
proved in the former discourse. They are evidently liable to 
natural death as soon as they are born ; and if they die and go 
into eternity with their native temper, they must necessarily be 
miserable in being what they are." — " God would not deal with 
us as being guilty of Adam's first sin, w 7 ere not Adam our re- 
nresentative." — "While men are disputing against the original 
constitution with Adam, they unawares undermine the second 
constitution, which is the foundation of all our hopes. Eager 
to avoid Adam's first sin, whereby comes condemnation, they 
render of none effect Christ's righteousness, whereby comes jus- 
tification." — " What remains, therefore, but Deism and Infidel- 
ity?" * So essential, in the view of Bellamy, is the doctrine 
of imputation, and that all sin is not voluntary; that its rejection 
leads to Deism and Infidelity. And has the Church of Jesus 
Christ no voice to raise, when error that is destructive of the 
gospel raises its dark banners in the Church? 

We protest against that acquittal, because the accused showed 
great levity while the Presbytery was deliberating on his case, 
and while his ministerial character was at stake ; because he said 
many things that implied that those denominated " the Old 
School," do not believe that sinners are free agents, nor that 
they had the natural faculties of moral agents ; and that the 
complainant had been treacherous and unmanly towards him ; 
that the cause of the complaint was ambition and the love of pre- 
eminence. Which were all, we think, irrelevant, unjust, and 
slanderous. Besides, although he heard Mr. Finney preach 
much in Boston, yet he affirmed that " he heard him preach no 
error." The amount of this confession is, that he and Mr. Fin- 
ney agree in doctrine — believe the same sentiments ; for if one 
Universalist should hear another one preach, we should expect 
that he would bear a similar testimony. 

We protest against the acquittal of the accused, because men 
who have imbibed gross errors while holding an honorable stand- 
ing in orthodox churches, have, from Arius and Pelagius down 
to the present time, been skilful in concealing the real state of 
their cases from the judicatories of the church, and have endeav- 
ored to palm themselves upon the orthodox, as believing a creed 
which they did not believe. 

We protest, because the accused endeavored to cover his errors 
and evade conviction, by wresting what is taught in our stand- 
ards upon effectual calling, into consistency with his views, that 
" regeneration is not by a direct agency of the Spirit, in which 
the subject must be passive; but that it is effected by moral sua- 



* " True Religion Delineated " ; Morristown, 1804 ; pp. 271, 269. 



( 85 ) 



sion." Our standards do indeed affirm, that effectual calling is 
by the Word, and Spirit. But the subject was effectual calling, 
not regeneration. This, the accused seemed not to discover ; 
but argued that our standards therefore teach that regeneration 
is effected by the instrumentality of gospel truth. He seemed 
not to know that effectual calling discussed in our standards, com- 
prehends two things, both the inward call and outward call, or 
regeneration, and putting in form and exercise the christian gra- 
ces. The one, is by the spirit alone, and by his direct agency, 
in which the subject is declared to be "altogether passive." The 
other thing, viz: — the formal exercise of christian graces, is ef- 
fected by the instrumentality of gospel truth, for faith cometh by 
hearing. As effectual calling in our standards, is distinguished 
from the common or outward call, and comprehends both regen- 
eration and the formation of actual christian graces in the mind, 
the third section is a digression, to show how the salvation of in- 
fants and other elect persons, if there are such, can be saved by 
regeneration alone, by one part of effectual calling, that is, with- 
out the formal exercise of those graces which are dependent on 
the knowledge of gospel truth. Thus our standards analyze 
the subject of effectual calling, and affirm that in the first part of 
it, which is regeneration, and which is called a quickening, a re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost, and an enabling to answer the call ; 
the subject is altogether passive. It is evident to common sense 
that this quickening, renewing, and enabling work of the spirit, 
must be previous to the application of gospel truth to the mind, 
for forming there the christian graces of faith, &c, for all those 
things are done by the direct agency of the spirit, the subject be- 
ing declared to be, "altogether passive therein," until they are 
completed. The work of quickening — making alive from the 
dead — the work of renewing — creating anew — and the work of 
enabling the sinner to obey the call, are not graces which per- 
tain to the christian's exercises. They are previous to those ex- 
ercises which are effected by the instrumentality of truth — such 
as repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
Christ ; and therefore it is truly said, that the subject is altogeth- 
er passive in being made the subject of them. Our standards 
contemplating faith and repentance as embraced in Effectual 
Calling, and as being subsequent to regeneration — to quickening 
and renewing — very properly ascribe Effectual Calling to the 
Word and to the Spirit, and add, to make it so plain that the fool 
shall not err y that so much of effectual calling as consists of quick- 
ening, renewing and enabling to answer this call, is so complete- 
ly by that direct agency of the Spirit, that the subject is altogeth- 
er passive, while the Spirit is effecting them ; not having a single 
gracious or christian exercise, until after they are finished, and the 
moment they are finished, then he is enabled to answer the call. 



( 86 ) 



by the exercise of faith and repentance, to produce which, the 
instrumentality of gospel truth must be used, since faith cometh 
by hearing. Adam was created — was made alive by the direct 
power of the Creator, before his lungs could be exercised in brea- 
thing the air. This was what enabled him to breathe the air.- — 
Air was as necessary to his breathing, as gospel truth is, to the 
forming, in the mind, of the christian graces. So the Scriptures 
represent it, " begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead." The disciples were not regen- 
erated by the doctrine of the resurrection ; but by it, they were 
enabled to hope, " begotten to a lively hope." The Apostle says 
to the Corinthians, 64 I have begotten you through the Gospel." 
They were begotten to Christian graces, as faith, repentance, 
hope by the instrumentality of the gospel." And the Apostle 
used the instrument by which these exercises were formed in 
their minds. He says, " I have begotten you." If this passage 
proves that regeneration is by moral suasion, it also proves that 
the Apostle was the author of it — Paul regenerated those Corin- 
thians—he used the instrument. If regeneration be by moral 
suasion — be by the instrumentality of truth — then men are the 
agents in regeneration as well as the Spirit, for they as really use 
and ply the instrument. 

The Scriptures and our Standards agree in maintaining the in- 
strumentality of Gospel truth in Effectual Calling. By the out- 
ward call — the instructions of the Gospel — the mind is furnished 
with the elements by which the new born soul imbibes the ac- 
tive graces of the christian, and without which, they could not 
be. If fish had been created without water, and birds without 
air, the faculties with which they are endowed, could not have 
been developed. It is so in the other case. If men were regen- 
erated, without being furnished with any instructions about God 
and the Gospel, they could no more have developed their new 
nature by the exercise of repentance, faith, and the other chris- 
tian graces, than a fish could swim, or a bird could fly without 
their appropriate elements ; but who will argue from such a fact, 
that the air and the water were the instruments by which these 
animals were created ? It is no less absurd to argue, that be- 
cause gospel truth is the necessary instrument of the new exer- 
cises of the renewed soul, it must also be the instrument by 
which he is quickened to spiritual life, and created in Christ Je- 
sus, unto good works. The nature or property must exist prior 
to the development, at least, in the order of nature, if there be 
no difference in time. Therefore it is written, " created in Christ 
Jesus, unto good works." That creating act is put first, and its 
object is declared to be, that good works — right exercises, might 
be the effect; strange that the effect should be the instrument of 
the cause. If all this is with great plainness, and with beautiful 



( 87 ) 



consistency, set forth in our standards, and the subject declared to 
be passive in regeneration, until by the quickening and renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost, he is enabled to imbibe the graces in- 
culcated in the word, it is a subject for grave inquiry, why a 
Doctor in Divinity cannot understand it. How then can he 
teach others, when he cannot understand himself ? For it is 
written, "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the 
ditch. " This, doubtless, is written for our instruction. 

We protest, because the sentiments of the accused, that all de- 
pravity lies in the will, and that the commission of sin is impos- 
sible, without understanding, conscience and choice, makes God 
unjust in the pains and death of infants. They suffer pains and 
death before they can exercise understanding, conscience and 
choice, so as to commit actual sin, and the sin of Adam is not 
imputed to them ; this would be sin that was not voluntary, 
did not lie in the will ; neither have they any corrupt and 
sinful nature, for this likewise would be sin that is not vol- 
untary, that does not lie in the will, what sin then do they suffer 
for ? For according to the sentiments of the accused, they have 
no sin, either original or actual. If they suffer without sin either 
actual or original, how is God just ? And how are the scriptures 
true that affirm that death is the wages of sin. According to 
Dr. Beecher's sentiments, this scripture is not true. The death 
of infants is only occasioned by sin, is somehow the consequence 
of sin — but not the wages of it. 

We protest, because that acquittal is a virtual declaration, that 
the Calvinistic system is false, and that Presbyterians are here- 
tics. And we think that no Presbytery can pronounce such 
a sentence, even virtually, without great wrong ; nay, without 
even perjury; so long as the members of the court stand pledged 
to the constitution of the church, and to the maintenance of her 
peace and purity. The accused has taught doctrines at variance 
with our standards, and which contradict them on the subjects 
of Imputation, a Corrupt Nature, Human Ability, and Regen- 
eration. His acquittal therefore, and his justification, is a virtual 
sentence of condemnation upon the church, for holding a false 
creed. The doctrines of our church must be heresy, if the ac- 
cused ought to have been acquitted ; because, like the Bible, 
they fearlessly and unequivocally teach inability, imputation, 
and a sinful nature ; while the accused, as plainly denying them, 
is acquitted and justified. If he was justifiable, his acquittal is 
not going far enough ; the sentence ought to contain this reason 
for his acquittal: " That, as our standards contain false doctrine, 
it is right, it is doing God service, to impugn them." For it 
must be evident, that if we have better light, our candle should 
not be put under a bushel. We should do more than wash our 
hands with Pilate, and let wickedness go on ; we should de- 



( 88 ) 



nounce the errors of the church, clear our skirts of the blood of 
souls, and of Heaven-provoking heresy, and let poor deceived 
Presbyterians every where know that our standards are untrue, 
and that it is wicked before Heaven to preach or believe them. 
If Doctor Beecher's sentiments are true, those who preach the 
doctrines taught in our standards are guilty of great sin, which 
the Presbytery was bound to condemn. And to be farther con- 
sistent, we must pronounce a similar sentence upon the Holy 
Scriptures, which every where represent fallen man as entirely 
bankrupt, as to ability, or righteousness, or power to help him- 
self ; and they compare him to a man that owed ten thousand 
talents, and yet had nothing to pay ; and, notwithstanding his ina- 
bility to pay, was delivered to be sold, with his wife and his 
children, into servitude. His inability to pay, made no altera- 
tion of the claim against him. The Scriptures represent fallen 
man as dead in trespasses and sins, and as needing the quick- 
ening of Almighty power to raise them therefrom. And they 
represent even Christians as unable to do the good that they 
will to do. If Doctor Beecher does not deserve censure, the 
Word of God is given up, and falls under the censure that his 
acquittal implies. 

We protest against that acquittal, because it was in contu- 
macy to the injunctions of the Synod, which was a part of the 
compromise made at Chillicothe, in October, 1832, and which 
enjoined it on the Presbytery, as a duty, " to discipline all 
such as disturb the churches, either with novel sentiments or 
such expressions as are calculated to excite suspicion." The 
complaint of Doctor Wilson against Doctor Beecher was in obe- 
dience to this injunction ; but the decision of Presbytery was 
not so, but was in bold contumacy. 

We protest, because that acquittal of the accused was a direct 
violation of a solemn pledge of the Presbytery, made at a meet- 
ing subsequent to that injunction of Synod, that the Presbytery 
would obey it. To violate such a pledge, made by the Reverend 
and honored servants of Christ, and made in a solemn church- 
court, and thus being of the nature of a vow to God, and 
recorded in Heaven; is, as we think, too much like a sacrifice of 
christian character ; for though the christian swear to his own 
hurt, it is written, "he changeth not." If such a pledge, such 
a vow, such an oath, may be violated whenever it shall be found 
convenient to do so ; then all confidence in the veracity and 
faithfulness of christian rulers will be lost, and the church will 
deservedly become a hiss, a proverb, and a by-word, to a scof- 
fing world. We protest against such a desecrating act. We 
protest against an act that goes to show that Christians and Rev- 
erend ministers can forfeit their word — nay, can lightly violate 
their most sacred and solemn engagements. They are a city 



( 39 ) 



set on a hill, which cannot be hid ; and by their fruits ye shall 
know them. Our conduct gives color to our character. Men 
will understand it, and will know if their brethren, men of their 
own party, are not honest, do not speak and think and act in 
consistency. 

We protest against that acquittal, because the reasons assigned 
for it do not meet the case. If the accused believes that all de- 
pravity lies in the will — that sin is all voluntary — that no sin- 
ful nature is possible — and that sinners have full ability, by the 
exercise of their natural faculties alone, to comply with the 
terms of salvation — then no man can say that he believes what 
our standards teach upon imputed sin, a sinful nature, and hu- 
man ability. This was made perfectly clear to the Presbytery. 
No assertion of orthodoxy now — no declaration of what the 
accused now believes — no explanations of the " Confession of 
Faith," to make it consistent with Pelagianism — no wresting 
of the Scriptures, to make them teach heresy — can avail any 
thing for the accused now ; his sentiments are public — he has 
committed himself. His sermon on Dependence and Free 
Agency was published in view of his entering the Presbyterian 
Church and occupying his present station. Nothing will meet 
the case or cure the evil, now, but the publication of his recan- 
tation. Unless he be shown his errors now, and convinced of 
them, and recant them, he will continue to preach and publish 
them, and laugh at the discipline of the church. The sentiments 
of the accused, as before shown, subvert the whole system of 
gospel truth, and amount to another gospel. If we examine his 
publications, we find not a word in favor of the imputation of 
Adam's sin^ hor of Christ's righteousness, to us. Such silence 
in a Presbyterian minister, at the present day, means something ; 
and it demonstrates that his ministry for the future will lend its 
influence against the gospel on which our hopes rest. He will 
take away the righteousness of God from us. But it is not his 
silence alone that renders his future ministry portentous of evil. 
He asserts that " there is no position which unites more univer- 
sally the suffrages of the whole human race, than the necessity 
of a capacity for obedience to the existence of obligation and 
desert of punishment."* There is, then, no sin but actual—* 
nothing, previous to actual sin, that renders us deserving of pun- 
ishment. Then there is no imputed sin, for which we deserve 
the curse of Heaven. If there is no sin of Adam imputed to 
us, then there is no righteousness of Christ imputed to us. 
How, then, are we to be saved? By our personal righteousness, 
taking the glory to ourselves? or without any righteousness, 
making God unjust? The Scriptures place the imputation of 



* " Dependence and Free Agency," p. 12. 
M 



( 90 ) 



the sin of the first Adam, upon the same ground with the impu- 
tation of the righteousness of the second Adam, with only some 
minor differences, which leave the principle untouched. But 
from the evidence exhibited to the Presbytery, the accused 
knows nothing about this gospel. His scheme, that he will 
exhibit in his future ministry, is quite of another kind. And 
shall it go with our seal — our certificate of credence — with the 
sanction of this Presbytery? If it must, it shall not go without 
our Protest. 

Let the Presbytery reflect upon the spirit and temper of the 
accused, as publicly manifested, in censuring and. ridiculing his 
orthodox brethren, because they believe the doctrines which they 
have professed to believe, and are not willing to break their 
vows and perjure themselves, and make shipwreck of faith. — 
One would think that a Presbyterian minister, remaining in 
the church, and holding Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian sentiments, 
would be grateful for an obscure corner in the church, and would 
modestly retire from censorship upon his more faithful brethren. 
The accused holds up orthodoxy, and the orthodox to contempt 
and ridicule, by comparing our venerated commentators upon 
the Holy Scriptures, to the Welchmen hanging upon each others 
heels, to descend into the wa er for a cheese, which they mistook 
the reflection of the moon to be ; and by representing those who 
believe our standards, as such poor ignorant creatures, as " to need 
that some one should teach them which be the first principles of 
the oracles of God," and by affirming that t he "doctrine of the sin- 
ner's inability, lias done more, as he verily believes, to wrap in 
sackcloth the Sun of righteousness, and to perpetuate the shadow of 
death, on thoss who might have been rejoicing in his light, than 
all errors beside." And is this a Presbyterian minister ? Is this our 
brother whom we honor, .and to whom we give the right hand of 
fellowship, to take part of this ministry with us, to take sweet 
counsel together, and to go to the house of God in company, 
that so speaks of us and our doctrine? 

Experience has shown that the corruption of the Church com- 
mences with her ministry, and extends where their influence 
can carry it. But corruption never can prevail in a Church, so 
long as her judicatories are faithful in the exercise of discipline, 
without respect of persons, and in the fear of Him who has com- 
manded her to beware of the leaven of erroneous doctrine — to 
purge out the old leaven, for a little leaven leaveneth the whole 
lump — and him that is an heretic, after the first and second ad- 
monition, reject. Fai hfulness in discipline, we admit, is a vir- 
tue of difficult exercise. But the christian soldier must buckle 
on the harness and obey his Captain, and trust in him, and the 
conquest is sure, it is of no doubtful issue. When a person is 
accused of heresy, and the heresy is proved, it makes no differ- 



( 91 ) 

ence what he says he believes when he comes into court. There 
is but one question left for decision, which is, "Will he recant 
his errors?" If he will, all will rejoice that one is converted 
from the error of his ways. If he will not, there is only one 
course that the Head of the Church has given us to pursue, 
which is to reject him. When a minister becomes an errorist, 
and for some private reason wishes to stay in the Church, we 
expect that he will make specious professions of orthodoxy, as 
Pelagius and Celestius did before the Pontiff Zozirnus. History 
says, " The new Pontiff, gained over by the ambiguous and 
ssemingly orthodox Confession of Faith that Celestius, who was 
at Rome, had artfully drawn up, and also by letters of protesta- 
tions of Pelagius, pronounced in favor of the monks, and de- 
clared them sound in the faith, and unjustly persecuted by their 
adversaries." The same history also states, that the same court 
afterwards saw cause to reverse this judgment, and condemn the 
heretics. Professions of orthodoxy, on trial, are of just as much 
account in such a case, as professions of honesty and love for the 
law would be, were a thief on trial in another court. The court 
would not hear such a plea. They would only inquire whether 
the prisoner were guilty of the counts in the indictment, anti 
would give judgment accordingly. But the Lord said "that 
the children of this world are wiser in their generations, than 
the children of light." 

We protest, because that acquittal is unkind and unfaithful to 
the accused. The doctrines of our church are at war with the 
pride and enmity of carnal men ; while the opposite doctrines 
respecting Imputation, a Sinful Nature, and Human Ability, are 
pleasing to them, and so much the more to be dreaded and discoun- 
tenanced. As these opposite doctrines are false, as we have all pro- 
fessed most firmly to believe, by our union with the Presbyterian 
Church, under her Confession of Faith ; and by our ordination 
vows have virtually sworn that they are false ; and if the ac- 
cused, who has the same obligations, has made shipwreck of faith, 
broken his vows to seek the peace and purity of the Church-, 
and has gone beyond Arminius, and embraced Pelagian and 
Semi-Pelagian errors, and if the facts are clearly made k,nown 
to Presbytery, it is unkind, it is unfaithful to him, to let him es- 
cape with impunity. It is cruel to his soul, and to the souls of 
others. The doctrine of the accused forbids him to raise any 
hope of salvation upon the righteousness of Christ, imputed to 
him for justification ; or to plead the guilt of imputed sin and a 
sinful nature, with humble and heartfelt repentance on their 
account. The doctrines of imputation, a sinful nature, and hu- 
man inability, are true, or there is no gospel, as we verily believe. 
Nothing remains, says Bellamy, if imputation is taken away, but 
Deism and Infidelity, But this is not enough for the accused. He 



( 92 ) 



sacrifices more of the precious truth on which our hopes rely* 
Now God commands us, saying, " Thou shaltnot suffer sin upon 
thy brother." To leave a brother in such a reckless career, and 
use no means for his recovery,- is to encourage him in froward- 
ness and error — is the exercise of enmity towards him - 7 as it is 
written, " He that spareth the rod, hateth his son." The ac- 
cused has too long suffered this unkindness, this cruelty, from 
his brethren. Now his reclamation is nearly hopeless j he ap- 
pears now really to suppose those false doctrines to be true, and 
to believe them as firmly as ever he believed the gospel. So 
much greater need is there of faithfulness to him, with a sol- 
emn recollection of what the Apostle has said: " Though we or 
an Angel from Heaven preach any other gospel, let him be 
accursed." Not only is Doctor Beecher's course dangerous to 
the purity of the Church, but it is dangerous to his own soul ; 
and his brethren are guilty of his blood, if they are unfaithful,, 
and neglect wholesome discipline. The Lord Jesus said, " My 
sheep hear my voice, and they follow me. He that is of 
God, heareth God's words ; ye therefore hear them not, be- 
cause ye are not of God. He that hath my commandments and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." And it is written, "to 
the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them." Here are 
fearful considerations about embracing error, and not receiving 
the simple and soul-humbling doctrines of truth. But how is 
the case of the accused aggravated, by his embracing error against 
his own creed— against his own solemn vows — against his own 
character for faithfulness, sincerity and truth. If he be dealt 
with in faithfulness to his own soul, and in fidelity to the 
Head of the Church, the blessing of the Lord will attend 
that faithful dealing. God, in his Providence, has thrown 
the case of this erring brother before the Presbytery. And 
what has been done? The faithfulness of the brethren has 
been tried, and the result has been such that we are constrained 
to enter this solemn protest against it. 

JOHN BURTT, 
SAYRS GAZLAY, 
L. G. GAINES, 
ADRIAN ATEN,* 

A true extract from the records of Cincinnati Presbytery. 

TH. J. BIGGS, S. C. 



* And others. The names of all the Minority, who protested, are at the close 
of the decision of Presbytery, p. 40. 



( 93 ) 



THE REJECTED PROTEST. 

When Dr. Beecher was received into the Presbytery of Cin- 
cinnati, in November, 1S32, after due notice given, I prepared 
and offered the following Protest, which was rejected, viz : 

In entering my solemn protest against the vote of the Presby- 
tery of Cincinnati, by which they received the Rev. Lyman 
Beecher, D. D., as a member of their body, on a dismission and 
recommendation from the third Presbytery of New York, I dis- 
claim all motives arising from any private or personal dislike to 
that distinguished brother ; but I am moved by serious appre- 
hensions that the purity, peace, and prosperity of the Presbyte- 
rian Church is endangered by his reception. My reasons for 
entertaining this opinion are the following : 

1. Dr. Beecher's second sermon on " The native Character of 
Man," published in the National Preacher, June, 1827, contains 
in it sentiments which I deem to be at variance with the stand- 
ards of the Presbyterian Church, and contrary to the word of 
God ; and these sentiments he has never recanted. 

2. Dr. Beecher recently assisted in giving a decision in the 
case of the Richmond Street Church, in Providence, Rhode 
Island, which I consider a flat and important contradiction to a 
part of the standards of the Presbyterian Church on the subject 
of baptism ; and his sentiment then expressed as a Congrega- 
tionalist, he has not renounced. 

3. General, loud, long, and uncontradicted fame, says that Dr. 
Beecher preaches doctrines contrary to those of the Presbyterian 
Church and to the orthodox churches of New England. 

This is a sufficient ground for instituting a process against a 
member for error ; and what is a sufficient ground for a process 
against a member of Presbytery, is sufficient reason for refusing 
admission to an applicant for membership. 

4. The recent attempt made by Dr. Beecher to remove to the 
west under the patronage of a distinguished professor of the An- 
dover Seminary, is to me altogether unsatisfactory ; as his cor- 
respondence with Dr. Woods contains no renunciation of his 
preached and published errors ; but he has in that correspondence 
adopted a doubtful phraseology in order to show that Presbyte- 
rians and Congregational ists agree in fundamental doctrines. 

In addition to this protest, which is intended for the review 
and control of the Synod of Cincinnati, I intend to complain to 
the next General Assembly, on the same grounds here taken, in 
order to obtain an early decision whether a Presbytery has a 
right to receive an applicant under such circumstances ; and in 
this complaint I shall take an additional ground, viz., the fact 
that the Synod of New York decided that the third Presbytery 
of New York received Dr. Beecher unconstitutionally. 

(Signed) J. L. WILSON. 



( 94 ) 



Why was this protest rejected ? Were the statements untrue ? 
Was the language disrespectful ? No, no ; but they had con- 
trived to vote me into the moderator's chair, and then decided 
that I could not protest against their wrong doings because I had 
no rio-ht to vote. Having no right to vote, I was not to be held 
responsible for what they did, though, as moderator, I must offi- 
cially sign their minutes. Here they rejected my protest, on 
the ground that I was not responsible. Yet, in another case, 
when it suited them, I was held responsible for the doings of a 
committee of which I was chairman, where I had no right to 
vote ; and the burden of the evil doings of F. Y. Vail and others 
was packed upon my shoulders, because my name was put to 
their official document inviting Dr. Beecher to Lane Seminary. 

Consistency ! Consistency ! hast thou forever fled from the 
ranks of the New School ? Know all men, and all women 
too, that I was responsible in neither case ; nor did I claim the 
right of protesting * on the ground of responsibility for what 
they did amiss ; but as a member of the body, whether in or out 
of the chair, I had a right to protest against erroneous practice 
as well as erroneous opinions. 

It is due however to Dr. Beecher, to say, that he apologized 
for his decision in the case of the Richmond Street Church. He 
decided there as a Congregationalist — here, as a Presbyterian, 
he would decide differently ! Tempora mutantur et nos ! 
The versatility of some men is truly surprising, if a man could 
be surprised at any thing in the nineteenth century. To exem- 
plify this remark, I will cite a few cases in addition to the above. 

Dr. Beecher, in December, 1827, had a tolerably clear idea of 
the duplicity, double-dealing, and lying, that was beginning 
to be practised by the New-measure-men " down East and 
in a letter to the Editor of the Christian Spectator expressed 
himself thus : — 

" The personal character of one or more ministers and Chris- 
tians is no guarantee against great evil, when they, on one sub- 
ject, have adopted a dangerous practice, and are committed and 
identified with a party, whose movements they will not control, 
but will rather be controlled by them. 

"Besides, there is a peculiarity, a e dementia quoad hoc/ at- 
tending this thing, which, if you give to statements and charac- 
ter the consideration which on all other subjects would be due, 
will certainly deceive you. 

" I do know, as incident to these new measures, there is a spirit 
of the most marvellous duplicity and double-dealing and lying, 
surpassing my thing which has come up in my day. I call no 
names. lest no implications of designed falsehood. I leave 
all this for God to decide. But that the system is maintained 
by a most active and inveterate circulation of falsehood, I am 



( 95 ) 



sure. I do not say this without long and careful observation 
and ample evidence. I do not intend by the remark to express 
my belief that wilful and deliberate lying is resorted to by any. 
But the effect is as if it were so ; and if it is not the result of a 
state of perverted apprehension, which, in terms of strong feeling 
on a given subject, is, no doubt, a < dementia f it can only be as- 
cribed to a worse cause. And I am also certain (for I have tried 
it for more than one whole year, thoroughly, as my correspond- 
ence will show, if ever called for,) that no kindness and mag- 
nanimity on our part will be appreciated, — but as it ceases to 
oppose the new measures and falls in. And nothing will re- 
claim, but open and decided kesistance. There is now cor- 
respondence and contrivance and plotting which will succeed at 
length, if the grasp can be relaxed which has begun to stran- 
gle the Hydra — I speak not oi revivals, or of the good men con- 
cerned, but of that unperceived infernal spirit which is at work 
in them. All their remarks are brought to a focus in 'the 
spirit of unrelenting hostility which is directed against Nettle- 
ton, and which, as I know, will destroy or neutralize his influ- 
ence, if it can — and the object is to destroy him as the obstacle 

to , both as a retaliation for what he has done, and as a 

means of preventing his influence in future. And if Connecti- 
cut, and New England generally, temporize, — if we leave him 
alone to fight our battles and the Lord's, — and finally to sink 
under a load of suspicion and obloquy, — we shall deserve, and 
shall receive, a tremendous retribution. For New England has 
combustibles enough, still, to make a fire which no man can 
stand against." 

At this time, when Doctor Beecher was wide awake to this 
important subject, I w T as slumbering. As David says, " My 
feet were almost gone — had well nigh slipt." I was led like 
a sheep to the slaughter, by the New-School. But soon their 
duplicity was perceived "up West" — and by the time I 
began to scuffle for deliverance,. Doctor Beecher became com- 
pletely ensnared, and has ever since identified himself with ".the 
system " that has been, and still is, " maintained by most active 
and inveterate circulation of falsehood." Nos mutamur! 

Again. In 1827, C. G. Finney stood very low in Doctor 
Beecher's estimation ; as will appear by the following passage 
from the same letter. 

" Mr. Nettleton has served God and his generation with more 
self-denial, and constancy, and wisdom, and success, than any 
man living. I witnessed his commencement and know his pro- 
gress, and the relative state of things, in Connecticut especially, 
and what (but for his influence in promoting revivals, and ex- 
citing, and teaching, by example, others to promote them,) 
might have been the condition of the churches in those days of 



( m i 



revolution through which they have passed. And considering 
the extent to which his knowledge and influence has extended, 
I regard him as beyond comparison the greatest benefactor 
which God has given to this nation, and through his influence 
in promoting pure and powerful revivals of religion, as destined 
to be one of the greatest benefactors to the world, and among 
the most efficient instruments of introducing the glory of the 
latter day. Now, that such a man as he should be traduced, and 
exposed to all manner of evil falsely, in order to save from de- 
served reprehension such a man as Finney, (who, whatever tal- 
ents or piety he may possess, is as far removed from the talent, 
wisdom, and judgment, and experience, of Nettleton, as any 
coporal in the French army was removed from the talent and 
generalship of Bonaparte,) is what neither my reason, nor my 
conscience, nor my heart, will endure. And in anticipation of 
the attack which may be, and probably will be, made on him, 
though I am pressed immeasurably with the warfare here, 
yet sure I am of this, that so long as God spares my life and 
powers, there is one man, certainly, in New England, (I know 
there are thousands,) who will consider that in defending him, 
he defends the cause in one of the most vital points. 

" While I live, I am pledged to Brother Nettleton by affection, 
and gratitude, and duty, and nothing could grieve or alarm me 
more, than to witness in New England any flinching or any 
temporizing in respect to him," 

And then, at a tangent, Dr. Beecher is off, " hand and glove," 
with his little " corporal," and after all that had been seen, and 
known, and published, of Mr. Finney's heresies and extrava- 
gances — after all the offence that had been given the orthodox 
in New England, Doctor Beecher eulogized the "French cor- 
poral " before the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in the following 
strain: — 

"An attempt has been made to identify me with Mr. Finney. 
Now I had with that gentleman and others a long and arduous 
controversy, which continued, without intermission, for nine 
days. It was held in a council at New Lebanon. We discussed 
many points, and we parted without being mutually satisfied in 
respect to them: and he went about his Lord's work in his own 
way. Mr. Finney is a man of powerful intellect ; he is a holy 
man ; I have prayed with him and wept with him, and have felt 
the beatings of his great, warm heart before God. And those 
who speak slightingly of Mr. Finney, may do well to remem- 
ber that there is such a thing as offending God by speaking 
against his little ones. Mr. Finney has, since that time, gained 
knowledge by experience. He has reformed some of his meas- 
ures, which I supposed to be of dangerous tendency, and he is 
doing, as I hope, much good, with but few attendant evil conse* 



( 97 ) 



quences. When I was in Boston, as many as twenty deacons, 
or other influential members of the churches, got together, and 
invited the ministers to meet them ; and they proposed that we 
should send for Mr. Finney. After consultation and discus- 
sion, when it came to the vote, every layman, I believe, voted 
for the measure, and every minister against it. The interposi- 
tion of the ministers prevented his being sent for, much to the 
grief of many of the people. Some time after this, Doctor Wis- 
ner went to Providence to labor in a protracted meeting. 
There he met Mr. Finney, heard his doctrine, and became ac- 
quainted with his views and measures ; and when he returned 
to Boston, he told the ministers that he was satisfied, and he 
thought that we ought to yield to the wishes of the churches. 
We assented accordingly ; and then the Union church of Bos* 
ton, with the approbation of the pastors and the other evangelic 
cal churches, invited Mr. Finney to come and labor amongst us. 
When he came to Boston, I received and treated him as I think 
Doctor Wilson ought to have received and should have treated 
me. I gave him the right hand of fellowship, as expressive of 
my confidence in him, at least till something else should occur 
to shake it. He committed himself to our advice and guidance; 
he betrayed nothing of extravagance ; he was just as compliant 
as a lamb. And this I will say, that it will be long before I 
hear again so much truth, with as little to object to in the man- 
ner of its exhibition, in the same space of time. He preached 
no heresy in my hearing ; none. There was one of his meas- 
ures which I did not entirely approve, and from which I wished 
him to desist ; and he did desist. I have considered thus much 
as due both to myself and Mr. Finney." 

Once more. When Doctor Beecher was on trial before the 
Presbytery, he plead justification. " He had preached and pub- 
lished as had been charged. It was all right. The doctrines 
alleged, he made continual use of. If they were heresy, he 
would take them out of the Church, and leave them in the 
Church, too. He always preached them — never changed." This 
was taking high ground. The majority of the Presbytery sus- 
tained him — and then, lo! the " select system " comes forth by 
wholesale! 

But after the decision of the Synod, imperfect as it was, lot 
Doctor Beecher begins to preach orthodoxy! How can he 
preach orthodoxy? By the natural ability of the will — he can 
choose both ways — but he never happens to choose both ways 
at once. One way in the morning, another way in the evening 
— as is illustrated by the following passage from the Southern 
Christian Herald, viz: 

" No man is sounder in the faith, than the Rev. Asahel Net- 
tleton. Doctor John Holt Rice, now at rest with God we trust, 

N 



( 98 ) 



revered the character and views of this beloved brother, and ma* 
ny a Southern minister will have reason to praise God through 
all eternity, for brother Nettleton's visit to North Carolina, 
somewhere about 1829 and '30, or '31. A precious and exten- 
sive revival of religion followed his labors at Prince Edward, 
Va. In North Carolina, he seemed to labor without effect. — 
But a year after he left, a glorious work commenced at the Uni- 
versity, and extended to neighbouring churches. The writer 
well remembers hearing numbers attribute their first impres- 
sions on the subject of religion to brother N.'s labors of the pre- 
ceding year. Let ministers therefore be encouraged to sow the 
seed. The harvest may come when they are in their graves. 
The annotator heard Doctor Beecher preach a sermon on the 
work of the Holy Spirit, in Alleghany Town, Pa., in May last ; 
a sermon sound to the very core. The same evening he heard 
him in Pittsburgh, i on the excuses,' and with deep regret , be- 
cause it was inconsistent with itself, partly sound, and partly 
far from the plain simple truth, as it is in Christ. But this ap- 
pears to be Doctor B.'s great defect, and will be the case with 
all new system makers, who have to explain, guard, and de- 
fend their views. Truth is plain and simple, and is never sub- 
ject to contradiction in itself, nor needs explanation upon ex- 
planation for its defence. God alone who takes away, in regen- 
eration, the enmity of our carnal minds, can enable us to under- 
stand the truth. And when the enlightened, subduing influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit are experienced, the story of redeeming 
love, plain and simple, will be stripped of all its difficulties. 

KNOX." 

Was it right for Doctor Beecher, after preaching orthodoxy 
at one place, and unsound mixture in another, to go directly 
to New England, and make the following statements respecting 
" the Suspected Eegio?i The article was first published in 
the Connecticut Observer, and republished in the Hartford 
Watchman, of July 18, 1836. 

"'The Suspected Region.' — In his address before the 
Auxiliary Missionary Society of Connecticut, at its late anni- 
versary, Doctor Beecher remarked, in substance, that the points 
which divide the Orthodox Congregationalists in N. England, 
are not regarded at the West. Our use of the terms Old School 
and New School, do not correspond to their use of the same terms. 
TheOld School, there, regard ail portions of the Congregationalists 
of N. England with suspicion. If a man comes from the east of 
the Hudson, he comes from a suspected region ; and whether he 
comes from Andover, East-Windsor, or New- Haven, it makes 
little difference. His orthodoxy is liable to be called in ques- 
tion. They do not make much account of our minor differ- 
ences, but bind us all in the same bundle, Doctor B. said hr 



( 99 ) 



was tried, and his ecclesiastical life put in jeopardy, for holding 
the same doctrines and views which his brethren, whom he was 
then addressing, held in common — whatever shades of difference 
there might be in their opinions. He urged on the Association 
the importance of union in N. England — and that minor points 
should not be suffered to breed alienation among brethren." 

Can any thing be found to match this? Did not Dr. Beecher 
know that one of the Minority of Cincinnati Presbytery — one 
of the leading men who prepared the unanswered Protest — 
came from " East of the Hudson "? 

A writer in the Watchman regrets this statement of Doctor B.; 
but thinks that " he did not intend to give an incorrect view. 99 
But we who know how matters are here, cannot form so favora- 
ble an opinion. We cannot help but ask, if any thing can be found 
to match this statement made by Doctor Beecher before the 
Auxiliary Missionary Society of Connecticut ? It is a matter 
of deep regret that Doctor Beecher has furnished more than one 
match! In his remarks, appended to his letter to Doctor Por- 
ter, he says, " In respect to doctrines on my trials, I explained 
and justified, conceding only defect in phraseology, as trans- 
ferred from one region of the church to another/' And again. 
66 How a copy of Doctor Porter's letter came into the hands 
of him who sent it for publication, I shall not inquire ; but 
that he, Doctor Porter, gave it to any one, without communica- 
ting the fact that it had been satisfactorily answered, I shall not 
believe upon anonymous testimony ; and that he gave it for pub- 
lication without any such explanation, or for publication at all, 

I SHALL NOT BELIEVE UPON ANY TESTIMONY." The italics and 

capitals are mine — the declaration Doctor Beecher's. Is there 
any thing to match this? Yes. Speaking of the French Revo- 
lution, he says, " The explosion was terrific. It did, indeed, 
for a time, suspend the entire action of the divine government "! 
This is the man who is to mould and guide the rising ministry 
of the West!! 

TWO OFFICES— TWO SALARIES. 

When the Call from the 2d Pres. Church, for Dr. Beecher to be 
settled as their Pastor was under consideration, the subjects of two 
offices, two important fields of labor and two pretty large salaries, 
were involved in the discussion and decision. The offices and 
fields of labor were contended for on the grounds of " superior 
capabilities " — the salaries were claimed for various reasons ; 
among which it was stated, that Doctor Beecher had expended 
so much money in the education of his sons, as Ministers for 
the Church, that he was entitled to some remuneration. 

Since that time, the attention of not a few has been turned to 
this hopeful theological progeny! Doctor Beecher informed 



( ioo ) 



us, on his trial before the Presbytery, how he had made his chil- 
dren respectable, by assisting their natural ability, or, rather, 
moral inability — and others, as well as we, in the Valley, have 
been looking at the effects — the fruits — of this training. Doctor 
Porter said to Doctor Beecher, in 1829, " You are already 
aware that I have felt some serious apprehensions respecting cer- 
tain changes in your theological opinions, which you profess to 
have made of late years ; that is, as some of your remarks im- 
ply, changes gradually made during many years | others that 
they are chiefly quite recent/' — (Though Doctor Beecher as- 
serted pretty roundly, upon his trial, that he had made no 
changes.) But hear Doctor Porter: " It is several years since 
occasional remarks from Connecticut ministers, and one transient 
conversation with you, gave me some apprehensions as to your 
views ; but nothing serious existed in my mind, till I heard and 
read some speculations of your son, (1) in which I understood 
you to coincide ; and heard the echo (2) of your sermons in Bos- 
ton ; and had from you, in conversation, some disclosures of your 
views, and what I understood as an acknowledgment of general 
coincidence with the published views of Doctor Taylor. (3)" 
The following notes are taken from the Hartford Watchman: 

u (1.) 'Your son. 7 Edward Beecher delivered an address to 
the young men of Boston, in which he asserted that God, though 
physically omnipotent, had not acquired moral power enough 
to govern the universe according to his will. 

"(2.) 'I heard the echo of your oivn sermons in Boston, 
and had from you, in conversation, some disclosures 7 As 
to this echo, the following extract of a letter from a friend to 
whom Doctor Porter communicated the facts during the last 
two months of his life, may afford some light:— 4 He said he 
kept hearing complaints from such men as Mr. Evarts, (the late 
Jeremiah Evarts, Esq.) Mr. Evarts, he said, wrote to him, 
saying that Doctor Beecher and he were so long and well ac- 
quainted, that he (Doctor Porter) would have more influence 
with him than any other man.' It seems, then, that Doctor 
Porter's impressions of Doctor Beecher's views came from the 
report of such men as Mr. Evarts, and from personal conversa- 
tion. What better sources of information can be named? 

P (3.) i Doctor Taylor's published views. 7 These were, 
then, the Concio ad Clerum, and the Review of Spring on Re- 
generation." 

Doctor Beecher has published an answer to Doctor Porter's 
letter, which, I believe, is universally admitted to be unsatisfac- 
tory. He affirms that Doctor Porter was satisfied. Let us hear 
the Watchman in explanation: 

" Agreeably to the request of Doctor Beecher, we give his re- 
ply to Doctor Porter's letter a place in our columns, notwith- 



( ioi ) 



standing its extreme prolixity. Concerning this reply of Doctor 
Beecher, we see occasion for remark only on one point at pres- 
ent. Doctor Beecher claims that Doctor Porter was satisfied 
with his reply, and so expressed himself when the reply was 
read to him in the presence of sundry other gentlemen. * That 
Doctor Porter may have expressed his satisfaction conditionally, 
on the ground of certain explanations and engagements not con- 
tained in the written reply, which Doctor Beecher made in the 
interview to which we have alluded, we think probable. It is 
to be remembered that the paper now before us as the reply of 
Doctor Beecher was communicated by word of mouth, and was 
in fact only the memorandum upon which Doctor Beecher 
might enlarge, we know not how much, nor in what direction. 
Doctor Beecher might have made engagements and given as- 
surances at that meeting, which for the time might lead Doctor 
Porter to say he was satisfied, and which, if fulfilled, would have 
been satisfactory to the last. 

" But that Doctor Porter was satisfied with the reply now be- 
fore us, unattended by any thing more, or that he continued 
to be satisfied with Doctor Beecher's course in theological spec- 
ulations, we undertake to show is not true, and that for the fol- 
lowing reasons, viz: 

" 1. The reply affords no ground of satisfaction. 

" Doctor Porter's letter shows that he was in earnest, and had 
not lightly entered on this task of faithful admonition. Was he 
a man to be put off with a show of words? We cannot go into 
a minute examination of Doctor Beecher's reply, and as our 
readers have it before them, it will not be necessary to our pres- 
ent purpose. The amount of the reply is Doctor Beecher's as- 
tonishment at Dr. Porter's fears respecting him, and Dr. Beecher's 
reiterated declarations that Doctor Porter is mistaken. Now in 
all this Doctor Beecher may have been very sincere, but what is 
here calculated to afford satisfaction to a discerning mind? — 
Doctor Porter may indeed have been mistaken, but would he not 
have required some evidence of the fact, if fact it were, more 
than Dr. Beecher's ipse dixit? 

" 2. Whatever may have been Doctor Porter's hopes at the 
time of the interview above referred to, and whatever he may have 
expressed of satisfaction at the time ; yet the fact that he 
afterwards communicated the letter in question to his friends, 
and suffered it to be read, and at least one copy to be taken, 
shows irrefragably that his hopes were not realized, and that his 
satisfaction did not continue. We insist upon it that Doctor 
Porter never would have shown this letter to any one, nor have 
suffered it by any means to have gone from his own hands, had 
he been satisfied that the reasons which occasioned it had ceased 
to exist. But — 



( 103 ) 



" 3. To bring the matter to a close, we subjoin an extract of 
a letter from Dr. Porter to a friend, dated February 4, 1830, — 
which, it will be observed, is nearly a year after the date of Dr. 
Beecher's reply: 

" 4 It is five years since I warned brother Beecher against the 
spirit of speculation that was growing up in Connecticut. Two 
years ago I began to feel alarmed as to his own theories. More 
recently I have had several free conversations with him, and my 
fears have been allayed by assurances from him that he should 
preach the parts of Calvinism against which the unsanctified 
heart revolts ; and which, on mature deliberation, he did not 
think it his duty to preach earlier in Boston. I objected to 
him, that while Calvinism has two legs — the agency of God and 
the agency of man — he had made it walk on one, and thus had 
given to it the halting gait of Thersites, instead of the majestic 
march of Achilles. He admitted this partial exhibition, and 
justified it, as the case had been, but PROMISED TO CHANGE 
HIS COURSE. The grand danger of brother Beecher is too 
much reliance on means. He and Dr. Taylor are both virtually 
in the old moral suasion system. He plumply denies, that the 
more unregenerate man sees of God, the more he hates his 
character ; and objects, not so heedlessly indeed as Arminians 
and Infidels have done, that it must, if that be true, be the worst 
thing that we could do to preach the gospel to them.' 

" We have put in the CAPITALS in the above extract, not 
to give a different shade to the sentiment, but to direct the at- 
tention of our readers to the fact which explains the whole story 
of Dr. Porter's satisfaction. DOCTOR BEECHER PROM- 
ISED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT COURSE ! ! ! Dr. Porter, 
on the ground of this promise, declared himself satisfied. But 
after waiting for the pledge to be redeemed, and not finding it 
done, the probability is, he felt it his duty to communicate his 
letter, and renew and extend his testimony against Dr. Beecher's 
speculations and partial exhibitions. This we say is probable. 
All we have further to say on the topic at present is, we have 
at command still further testimony to show Dr. Porter's dissat- 
isfaction with Dr. Beecher's course after the communication of 
Dr. Beecher's reply. We have no wish to make it public unless 
it should become necessary; but if what we have published is 
not sufficient, we shall bring out more ; and if Dr. Beecher in- 
sists on having names — though we should regret the necessity 
of doing it — yet we shall endeavor to meet his wishes in this 
respect. 

" We cannot dismiss the subject without reverting to one re- 
mark of Dr. Porter in the above extract concerning Dr. Beech- 
er's manner of exhibiting the gospel. £ He (Dr. B.) admitted 
this partial exhibition, and justified it, as the case had been ; but 



( 103 ) 



promised to change his course/ And above, in the same ex- 
tract, on mature deliberation, he did not think it his duty to 
preach the parts of Calvinism against which the unsanctificd 
heart revolts, earlier in Boston. What an example! Does Dr. 
Beecher inculcate this policy on those whom he is training up 
for the ministry?" 

From among the speculations of Edward Beecher, now Pres- 
ident of Illinois College, at Jacksonville, two have been select- 
ed as specimens. 1. That God has not sufficient moral power 
to govern the world according to his will. 2. It is absurd to 
pray that God would enable sinners to repent and believe, be- , 
cause they are able and only unwilling. Quere — How could a 
man holding such opinions adopt the Standards of the Presby- 
terian Church? Answer — He could evade the adoption, or 
adopt with reservations, scruples, after the example of others. 

Mr. George Beecher (now Rev. G. Beecher) came before the 
Cincinnati Presbytery, a Licentiate, from New Haven. When 
under examination for ordination, and in his trial sermon, he 
was understood, by many, to deny the federal headship of Ad- 
am, and the imputation of his sin to his posterity — to deny that 
the posterity of Adam inherited a sinful nature from him — to 
assert, the sinner is able to do every thing which God requires 
of him — the christian is able to do every thing that God re- 
quires of him — God cannot justly require any thing of the sin- 
ner which he is not able to perform — the sinner is not blamable 
for any thing but his acts — infants have neither holiness nor 
sin, until they have done something — infants need a Savior, be- 
cause it is certain that they will sin either in this world or the 
next — we are not guilty for having a corrupt nature — the atone- 
ment was a governmental arrangement, by which sin can be 
pardoned on the conditions of partial obedience, faith and re- 
pentance ; these are called the righteousness of Christ, because 
they are accepted instead of perfect obedience, in consequence 
of the atonement — that God had done all he could do to prevent 
sin, and his happiness was diminished ; he felt all that grief and 
pain which are incident to benevolent minds, because his sub- 
jects were drawn off from love and obedience — &c. &c. 

Did Mr. G. B. adopt the Standards of the Presbyterian 
Church? yes! Was he ordained? Certainly! But the Mi- 
nority of Presbytery argued, protested, complained — all to no 
purpose! What did the Synod of Cincinnati do with the com- 
plaint? Dismissed it, on the ground that they were incompe- 
tent to take the testimony offered by the Minority! What did 
the General Assembly do? Ordered the Synod to take the tes- 
timony, and try the complaint. What did the Synod do then? 
Postponed it another year! What became of it? At the end 
of two years and a half, several of the principal witnesses were 



( 104 ) 



dead, one was lying on his death-bed, two had moved to such 
a great distance that their testimony could not be obtained ; and 
so the complaint became useless on earth. But the Head of the 
Church is judge, and some of the witnesses have already ap- 
peared before him! 

Of Doctor Beecher's other sons, I will say nothing at pres- 
ent. 

Miss C. E. Beecher was not educated, I presume, for the 
Ministry ; but she has been attempting to edify the Christian 
Community by her letters on the difficulties of religion. Let 
us see the the tendency of her doctrine; or hoiv it strikes a 
Unitarian. 

We are charged with unfairness, when we speak of the evil 
tendency of a doctrine to which we object. It is said: <0! the 
doctrine, then, is not heretical, but it may possibly lead to her- 
esy ! And is it fair to charge us with inferences or tendencies?' 
Yes ; it is fair, in doctrine as well as practice, to charge the 
known tendencies to the account of the teacher or practitioner. 
Temperate drinking has a tendency to intoxication — the doctrine 
of human ability in religion has a tendency to Unitarian- 
ism. One of these statements is as true as the other. Both 
are confirmed by long and general experience. Unitarians per- 
ceive clearly and rejoice greatly in the tendency of the New- 
School doctrines to their system. To illustrate this, take an ex- 
tract or two from the " Western Messenger " for July, 1836. 
Speaking of Miss C. E. Beecher's book, On the Difficulties of 
Religion, they say: 

" Our object will be to show, from these letters, what we tried 
to show from Dr. Beecher's Views in Theology, the nothing- 
ness of the dividing lines between the Unitarian and the mod- 
ern Evangelical Christian." 

" From this work, we do not learn that the school to which 
JVIiss Beecher belongs holds any doctrine affecting character, 
which Unitarians reject ; but does it equally agree with the 
faith of the Old Calvinists? Look for a moment at the position 
of the New-School : it thinks man able to help himself." (To 
this, Unitarians agree.) 

" Let any Unitarian read Miss Beecher's work, and he will 
be surprised to see how reasonable a thing is modern Evangeli- 
cal Christianity. We wish all of her faith would speak it as 
plainly as she does ; we wish they would stop their misleading 
nomenclature ; it is not fair nor honest to use debateable terms 
in theology, when clear ones abound. To talk of inability, 
when they mean unwillingness; and our sinning in Adam, 
when they mean that we sin ourselves. Let these opposers of 
Old Calvinism come boldly out and denounce it, not seek to 



( 105 ) 



creep under its skirts and stab it there ; why fight for a name?* 
There is and can be no broader line of division between two re- 
ligious parties, than does and must exist between the advocates of 
ability and those of inability; it is no mere metaphysical ques- 
tion upon which they differ — and yet there are those that i wish 
to heal this difference;' as well might they cut off a man's head, 
and then wish to heal the wound." 

How much money ought to be refunded to Doctor Beecher, 
for the education of Miss C. E. B., we know not ; but she cer- 
tainly promises to be as useful to the church as any of his sons. 
We should not have touched this delicate subject, had it not been 
so distinctly brought before the public ; first by Doctor B. him- 
self, and then by Doctor Porter's letter. That Doctor Beecher's 
sons and daughters are talented, amiable and respectable, I am 
glad to know, and free to confess ; and so is he, a talented, 
respectable man — but that any of them are sound in the faith, or 
good members of the Presbyterian Church, I cannot believe. 
It is my duty to do what I can to counteract their baleful influ- 
ence as theologians, and leave the result to Him who judgeth 
righteously. 

HOW IT STRIKES A PRESBYTERIAN. 

Letters on the Difficulties of Religion, by Catherine E. 
Beecher, — reviewed.t 

Miss Beecher's system of religion may be reduced to a single 
point. The Bible requires many duties, a conformity to which 
is not necessary to obtain salvation ; an internal character of 
piety, which may consist with many imperfections, is all that is 
essential to that religion which is connected with future happi- 
ness ; and this character of piety consists in the governing pur- 
pose or passion of the mind. When this is a desire to please 
God, the person may be said to possess true religion. Thus 
eternal life is made to depend entirely on a man's own good- 
ness. To be justified by faith, is to be justified by a good prin- 
ciple or disposition within us. No intimation is any where given in 
these letters, that our acceptance w T ith God is through the merits 
of another. According to her theory, it is our own inherent right- 
eousness or moral goodness by which we are rendered accepta- 
ble to God, and not by the merit or righteousness of Christ, 
which is never once mentioned or referred to. That this is her 



* " We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be 
called by thy name, to take away our reproach." This is the true reason why the 
New-School ' fight so for a name ' — they do not think with Unitarians that the 
name of Presbyterianism is a ' scant mantle.' J. L. W. 

f Biblical Repertory, Vol. viii., No. 4; pages 527—530, 532—534, 541—543. 

o 



( 106 ) 



notion of the plan of salvation, is evident from the whole tenor 
of these letters ; but as we do not wish to impose upon our read- 
ers the task of perusing the greater part of the volume, we will 
extract a few passages, by w T hich the sentiments of the writer 
will be sufficiently evinced. 

" A son has become disobedient and rebellious, refuses to sub- 
mit to the rules of the family, dislikes his father for the restraint 
imposed, distrusts his judgment, questions his rectitude, and the 
wisdom and propriety of his family regulations ; he finally for- 
sakes his home, becomes reckless and abandoned, is indolent, 
ill-tempered, licentious, profane, and the follower of every evil 
way; an object of universal contempt, pity and reprehension. 

" At last he comes under good influences, sees and properly 
feels the folly of his course, makes up his mind to return to his 
home and submit himself to the laws and authority of his fa- 
ther, sees the folly and wickedness of his past course, laments 
his ingratitude and the injury done to his father, feels the pro- 
priety, wisdom and goodness of his regulations, comes home, is 
forgiven, and commences a course of virtuous industry, and obe- 
dience to all family regulations. Some of his bad habits yet 
cling to him, but he strives against them, and is constantly gain- 
ing in the power of self-control. 

" Now in speaking of such a son, and of his change, all these 
expressions would be used to indicate the same thing. < He is 
become a new man;' 6 he is a new creature;' ' he has repented 
and returned;' 6 he has submitted to his father;' ' he has become 
an obedient son;' he has < turned from the evil of his ways;' or, 
to use the Scripture term, meaning the same thing, he is £ con- 
verted.' He now has confidence (or faith) in his father; he 
now 6 believes in what his father said;' 6 his actions are proof 
of his repentance;' 6 by his works he shows what he feels and 
believes;' 6 he is forgiven and treated like a good man,' (that is, 
he is justified by faith evinced by his works, or he is treated 
like a just man;) he is £ justified by faith, and justified by 
works, which are the fruits of faith;' 'he is saved from ruin:' 
'he has escaped condemnation;' and similar expressions. 

" Now the question might here arise, what is it for which he 
is forgiven and justified? Is it for his good works? Is it for 
his good feelings? Is it. for his good intentions? I say it is for 
all ; but the commencement of the result was that change in 
his mind, which was the efficient cause of all the rest. It was 
the determination made by himself, and carried out into ac- 
tion, to become an objdient and dutiful son, and this and its ef- 
fects are expressed by all these various methods." 

Miss Beecher evidently entertains the opinion, that the works 
which are excluded from being the ground of our justification 
before God, are mere external works without piety, and that 



( 107 ) 



the reason why faith justifies the sinner is, because it is an 
exercise of a pious heart; as will appear by the following ex- 
tract: — 

" This view is also opposed by all those passages that make a 
certain state of the mind the indispensable pre-requisite to sal- 
vation; for example, 6 wiihout faith it is impossible to please 
God,' < he that believeth not shall be damned/ and many others 
of similar import. Now these terms do not express a certain 
amount of good works, but they do express a certain state of 
mind or character. 

"Lastly, if you will examine the first part of Romans, and 
the Epistle to the Galatians, you will find this view of the sub- 
ject fully and directly controverted. Though you will probably 
find many things hard to be understood, in some parts of these 
writings, you will not fail to discover that the current of in- 
struction has this as its chief object, to prevent men from trust- 
ing to their good works, or the conformity of their actions to 
law, and to make them understand that we are to be justified 
by faith, or by that character or state of mind which consists 
in so believing in Jesus Christ, as to love him, and make it the 
business of our lives to please him. 

"You will find that this view wmich you have presented, has 
been equally the resting place of the Pagan, the Mohammedan, 
the Infidel, the Catholic, and that class of moral men among 
Protestants, who deny the necessity of regeneration. They all 
trust to their conformity to the rules of rectitude in external 
actions, without reference to the state of the heart; or, in the 
language of Scripture, they seek c justification by the works of 
the law' — instead of 'justification by faith;' or, in the language 
of common life, they hope to be saved by their good moral life, 
instead of becoming truly pious." 

Now if this pious character alone is requisite for our salva- 
tion, the mission and sacrifice of Christ were totally unnecessa- 
ry. This is surely "another gospel," and completely subver- 
sive of the gospel of Christ. We do not find fault with thecAar- 
acter which the writer makes to be requisite; but we do seri- 
ously object to this method of explaining the gospel plan of sal- 
vation. There has risen up, within a few years, a scheme of 
religion, which, while it professedly rejects no doctrine of Scrip- 
ture, leaves entirely out of view some of the cardinal doctrines 
of the Bible. Nothing is spoken of as requisite but right dis- 
positions of heart. Now as God is as able to produce such dis- 
positions without the mediation and atonement of Christ as with 
them, the practical inference will be, that such a plan of redemp- 
tion was not needed, or else some new and unscriptural view 
must be given to these doctrines. 

In the sketch of the way of salvation, rendered so simple by 



( 108 ) 



Miss Beecher, we are not only deprived of the mediation of Je- 
sus Christ, but we hear nothing of the agency of the Holy Spir- 
it, which is so prominent a doctrine in the old-fashioned divin- 
ity. As a certain character is all that is required in order to 
the possession of eternal life, the question very naturally occurs, 
have we ability to attain such a character? Miss B., who is not 
afraid to grapple with any difficulty, whether theological or me- 
taphysical, does not shun the inquiry, but meets it boldly; and, 
if we may judge from appearances, feels as if she had indeed the 
ability to untie this gordian knot. Before entering on this 
vexed question of human ability, she lays down most confident- 
ly a position, which, if true, must entirely supersede the agency 
of the Holy Spirit in preparing the soul for future happiness. — 
Her words are, (p. 170,) " I am sure God does not require any 

thing of us but what we have full ability to perform." 

* * * % * ~ * * * * 

We would ask her on what ground she is so confident that 
God never requires any thing from man, but what he has full 
ability to perform? Does she appeal to it as a self-evident 
principle, obvious to the intuition of every man of common 
sense, or is she able to establish it by convincing arguments? — 
If on either ground it can be rendered certain, it decides the 
controversy. But that it cannot be admitted as an intuitive, 
self-evident truth, is manifest from the fact that there always 
have beeu multitudes who utterly deny the truth of the posi- 
tion. There are now hundreds and thousands of intelligent 
men who do not receive this as an axiom, but who believe, that 
although in the state in which man was created, God could re- 
quire nothing from him but what he had full ability to perform; 
yet that now when he has voluntarily corrupted himself, the 
same axiom will not apply. If man has by a wilful rebellion 
destroyed his susceptibility of loving God, does the obligation 
of God's law forever cease, and is man under no obligation to 
obey his Creator any more? Can a creature thus free himself 
from the obligation of the divine law by the act of sinning? 
Then Miss B. ought not to have assumed this principle, for in this 
argument it is a mere petitio principii: it takes for granted the 
main point in controversy. And this is continually done by all 
who are asserters of man's full ability to do the will of God. 
They seem to consider all who deny their favorite position, as 
belying the connections of their own minds. We do not re- 
member to. have seen the shadow of an argument to demonstrate 
the position, and we are fully persuaded that the maintainers of 
depraved man's full ability to do the will of God, have con- 
founded together two things which are entirely distinct; and 
have got into the habit of applying to one case a maxim which 
is only true in relation to another case. It is true, and admitted 



( 109 ) 



by all men in their senses, that when the will to perform an act 
is good, and yet the ability is wanting, the person stands ac- 
quitted of blame in the judgment of all rational beings. And 
we admit that this plea, if truly made at the tribunal of 
God, will exculpate the person from all blame and punishment. 
As if a man sincerely wishes to relieve the indigent or rescue 
one perishing, but cannot accomplish his wish, no blame can at- 
tach to him for failing to do what he desired to do but could not. 
This maxim is universally true, and when fairly explained, is 
denied by no man who has common sense. This is the maxim 
current among men, which is admitted and acted on in courts 
of justice and in all the transactions of social life. It is a maxim 
recognized in every family on earth, pagan or Christian, and 
understood by every child five years old. Concerning ability 
thus explained, there is therefore no dispute, and can be none. 
But when this maxim, which is only true of actions consequent 
on volition, is applied to will itself, or to those moral disposi- 
tions in which character principally consists, it is utterly irrele - 
vant. In regard to affections of the mind, the only inquiry 
among men is as to their existence and nature. In order to cen- 
sure or condemn them they never go into any inquiry, whether 
the subject of them had power to feel otherwise. Whatever of 
moral disposition a man possesses is his own, and our judgment 
of him must be according to its nature, whether he could divest 
himself of it or not. The more inveterate a man- s malignant 
temper, the more difficult to be reformed ; of course Jhe less 
ability has he to become a good and benevolent person ; but 
surely he is not excusable in proportion to the strength of his 
malignancy. Some have endeavored to make the distinction 
between the two cases by distinguishing ability into natural and 
moral ; and while this distinction, though unphilosophical, was 
observed, no practical evil arose. But of late, many of the ad- 
vocates of plenary ability have seen that their favorite maxim 
could not be consistently maintained, while any kind of inabil- 
ity was acknowledged. They have therefore dropped the dis- 
tinction, and now hold that in order to be accountable for diso- 
bedience, we must have full power to obey ; or, as Miss B. ex- 
presses it, " full ability to perform " what God requires. The 
natural ability which some maintain, is precisely that ability 
which is requisite to render us culpable when we might have 
performed an act, mental or corporeal, if we had willed it ; or 
when we have willed or desired to perform an act, and were un- 
able for want, not of will, but of power, this inability exculpates 
us from all blame. This is the ver}^ case to which the maxim of 
common sense applies, and concerning which all men are agreed. 
But when they attempt to explain their moral ability ', they 
find themselves inextricably puzzled. Ability is always rela- 



(110) 



tive to something to be performed. Moral ability, as distin- 
guished from natural, can be nothing else than the disposition 
and will to perform such external acts of obedience as the law 
requires. But these very dispositions and voliiions are them- 
selves the very essence of moral obedience to the law of God, 
because his law requires the supreme love of the heart. If, then, 
love is the essence of what God requires, where shall we look 
for the ability to enable us to love? It has been by some assert- 
ed to be in the will, but this is to reverse the order of nature, 
according to the laws of which the will is governed by the af- 
fections, but not the affections by the will. Thus, upon analy- 
sis, what has been called moral ability turns out to be the es- 
sence of obedience itself, instead of an ability to perform obe- 
dience ; and moral inability, when analyzed in like manner, 
is nothing but sin in its essence, the want of a right disposition 

and a right will, the main things which the law of God requires. 

***** ***** 

The opinions which she ascribes to Antinomians, according 
to which "good works and a blameless life are not demanded as 
evidences of piety," we have never met with ; and as to the ex- 
treme of tdrminianism, according to which " any supernat- 
ural aid of the Holy Spirit is not needed for the formation of 
Christian character," we have known none who approach near- 
er to it than Miss B. herself, and others of the ultra new-school 
party. 

The account which she gives of the point on which parties 
differ in the Presbyterian Church, is very unfair : and we might 
justly retort upon her much of what she has charged upon the 
Unitarians. She ought to have given the opinions of the par- 
ties in their own words, or at least in language such as they use. 
One party is represented as holding " that the mind of man is so 
constituted by nature, that it loves to do wrong rather than to do 
right." This is not the opinion of any class or party. None 
hold that the tendency to evil is owing to the constitution of 
the mind. Again, she charges them with holding " that there 
is a natural aversion to the character of God when truly seen." 
This may be a just view of the sentiments of a certain class in N. 
England ; but the great body of old-school theologians in the 
Presbyterian Church, hold that depravity blinds the understand- 
ing, as well as hardens the heart. They hold that an unregen- 
erate sinner is incapable, until enlightened by the Spirit of God, 
of seeing the true character of God. When she charges them 
with holding "that many of the natural desires and affections 
of the human mind, that arise involuntarily, are wrong," we do 
not know what she means. Does she mean to represent it as a 
peculiarity of old-school theologians, that they hold the natural 
desires of avarice, envy, ill-will, and lust, to be evil, even if the 



( 111 ) 



consent of the will to their gratification is not given? This they 
do hold, and we should he loth to admit that any in our country 
entertain a different opinion. "And that man by his own choice 
or efforts has no power to change his natural constitution." — 
This they all hold with unwavering firmness, and believe that 
the contrary is not only repugnant to Scripture, but a doctrine 
replete with absurdity, hold it who may. " They suppose that 
until this constitution of mind is changed, it is impossible for a 
man to love God." To this we have nothing to except but the 
word constitution, which, as we understand it, properly ex- 
presses the faculties which belong to the mind. If it be here 
used to express moral depravity existing in the mind, we admit 
it to be a correct view. And with the same exception we admit 
what follows in the account of the opinions of the orthodox, as 
being not only their belief, but the plain declarations of God's 
word. 

Our strongest objection, however, is to the description given 
of the opinions of the other class in the church. She tells us 
that those hold " that men are made with the natural desire of 
happiness and fear of suffering, and that all their acts of choice 
have reference to gaining the one or avoiding the other." Now 
we never heard of any one maintaining that man was not made 
with a natural desire of happiness. Surely this is not one of 
the discoveries of the new divinity. Some people, at least, had 
an inkling of this before the new divinity was hatched. As to 
what is here linked in with this natural desire of happiness, 
that all acts of choice have reference to this natural desire, we 
willingly give it up to the new-school, not as a discovery of any 
of their acute theologians — for it is as old as man — but we ut- 
terly disclaim the doctrine, as pure selfishness. When she says 
that these men hold " that they do not like a thing because it is 
wrong, or dislike it because it is holy," the implication is that 
the other class of theologians hold the contrary — if not, why is 
this brought forward? None, that we know of, think that men 
choose sin merely because it is sin. There is no peculiarity 
here. And, in what follows, there is so much vagueness, that 
we know not what, the writer means, unless it is to assert what 
has been called the self-determining power of the will. Whether 
this is not a part of the system of the more modern new-school 
men, is doubtful. Certainly their scheme requires such an ap- 
pendage. And as soon as they avow it, we will willingly give 
it up to them with all its absurdities. " That the mind," says 
she, " is made so as to be able to understand, admire, and love 
the character of God, and to perceive the excellency and happi- 
ness of living to do good to others, instead of being supremely 
devoted to gaining good for self alone." Does she mean that 
the mind, in its depraved and fallen state, has the power ascribed 



( 112 ) 



to it? Then surely there is no need of regeneration. It is es- 
sentially right already. But how are we to reconcile what is 
here said about "living to do good to others, " &c, with what 
was before said about acts of choice having reference to the 
desire of happiness? But let this pass. Next we have what 
may be called the cardinal doctrine of new-schoolism, man's 
full ability to convert himself. She lays it down as a part of this 
creed, 

" That God requires men to give him their affections and the 
service of their lives, and that they have full power to comply 
with this requisition." 

In contrast with this perfect power attributed to man by this 
school, she represents their opponents as holding that man la- 
bors under a physical inability. Now we venture to say that 
in all the sermons or essays written by old-school men, she can- 
not find a single passage which uses this language. Nay, though 
they do hold that man is utterly unable to regenerate his own 
heart, they unanimously deny, that the inability under which he 
lies is properly called a physical inability. Why cannot Miss 
B. apply her own rules of equity to the dispute between the old 
and new-school parties, as well as to the Unitarian controversy? 
But she is not contented with representing the opinions from 
which she dissents in language foreign to their usage, but she 
with all imaginable coolness says, " I suppose one of these theo- 
ries, when clearly exhibited, to be no other than the theory of 
fatalism, and the other is its counterpart, or the system of free 
agency." We regret that Miss B. has not given us her defini- 
tion of fatalism and free agency. Perhaps we should have agreed 
to admit, that old Calvinists hold what she calls fatalism ; as 
several eminent systematic writers speak of what they call 
" Christian fate, 77 by which they mean the same as predestina- 
tion. But we deny that there is any propriety in applying this 
word to the opinions which she ascribes to a certain class of the- 
ologians. Fatalism is a blind necessity, unconnected with the 
plan or will of an intelligent being. If the mere certainty of 
events makes fatalism, then it will follow from every scheme 
which admits the foreknowledge of God ; or if the reason why 
Miss B. thinks that the abettors of the old theology are fatalists, 
is because they maintain that our volitions have a cause which 
produces them with certainty, we are persuaded that she will not 
be able to escape fatalism but by taking refuge in absurdity. It 
is easy to bring such charges, but quite another thing to substan- 
tiate them. Until some evidence, therefore, is adduced to esta- 
blish the fatalism of these men, we shall consider all such charges 
of the nature of a calumny, intended to render certain opinions 
odious, by giving them a bad name. 



( 113 ) 



CORRESPONDENCE. 

Leivisburgh, Feb. 21th, 1837. 

Rev. J. L. Wilson, D. D. 

Dear Brother — An inquiry has been made through the 
Southern Religious Telegraph, " where those fatalists are, in our 
Church, whom the Synod of Virginia condemned, in their 
late act on the state of the church." In answer to this call, refer- 
ence has been had to you, as probably one of that number. A 
benefit will be conferred upon the church, if you will answer the 
following questions. 

1st. Do you believe that the sinner has " 5 no power of any 
kind to do his duty ?" 

You will at once see, that the answer to this question, does 
not turn upon the point, whether the sinner can change his own 
heart, but whether he has power of any kind to do his duty B 

2d. Do you know of any fatalists in our church ? 

It is not my wish that you should enter upon a discussion of 
these questions, but simply to answer them, which I hope you 
will do, immediately on receiving this letter. With your per- 
mission, I wish to use your answer publicly. 

I am, your affectionate brother, 

John McElhenney. 

Cincinnati, March 13th, 1837. 

Rev. John McElhenney, 

Dear Brother — Your favor of February 27th, came to 
hand this morning. As you have written for 66 the benefit of 
the church," you will not be displeased with the medium thro' 
which your questions and my answers are made public. Can it 
be supposed that so grave a body of men as the Synod of Vir- 
ginia, would condemn any of their brethren, as fatalists, upon 
slight evidence, or upon no evidence at all ! If such a suppo- 
sition be too monstrous, and I am referred to " as probably one 
of their number," why have I not been called upon to answer in 
due form, and meet my accusers according to the rules of the 
Church ? 

I do not deny the right of the Synod of Virginia to condemn 
erroneous opinions, but I do deny their right to fix charges and 
condemnation on me, without sufficient evidence. I am thank- 
ful to you for the opportunity of answering for myself. Gladly 
would I answer as you have requested, without discussion, if I 
knew the sense in which the terms " fatalists " and "duty " are 
used. They are equivocal and ought to be clearly defined. Is 



( 1U ) 



a fatalist one who maintains that all things come to pass or hap- 
pen by an inevitable necessity in things, which God himself can- 
not control, that God has exhausted his skill and power upon a 
created production, and would make and govern the world bet- 
ter if he could ? Then / am no fatalist. Is a fatalist one 
who maintains that God made the universe " after the counsel of 
his own will" and that "according to his will" he governs the 
parts as well as the whole, mind as well as matter, by a prede- 
termined order or series of things or events? Then I am a fa- 
talist, a predestinarian, called a fatalist by Arminians and 
semi-Pelagians. 

I understand duty to be that to which a man is bound by nat- 
ural or legal obligation. The rule of man's duty is God's re- 
vealed will. The duty of man is to keep all the commandments 
of God perfectly, to love God supremely, and his neighbor as 
himself. If God has commanded man to make to himself a new 
heart, it is his duty to do that. Now comes the question. Has 
fallen unregenerate man " power, ( ability ) of any kind to do his 
duty ?" Ans. no ! Is this fatalism ? Then I am a fatal- 
ist ! And I know many such fatalists in the Presbyterian 
Church. 

Fallen man has wisdom and power and will to do evil, but to 
do good, he has neither knowledge, nor might, nor volition. A 
fallen unregenerate sinner has power, as a natural man, to plow, 
but" the plowing of the wicked is sin:" to sacrifice, but, " the 
sacrifice of the wicked is abomination:" to give all his goods 
to the poor, but, "itprofiteth him nothing:" to read the bible, 
but the things of the Spirit are foolishness unto him: to do ma- 
ny things, but they are all dead works, from which his con- 
science must be purged, by the blood of Christ, before he can 
serve the living God, viz. " do his duty." 

Ques. 1. Has the unregenerate sinner "power of any kind" 
to love supremely that which he cordially hates ? 

Ans. No. 

2. Has he " power of any kind " to do that which is good, 
while he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to 
all good and wholly inclined to all evil ? 

Ans. No. 

3. Has fallen man all the faculties and parts of soul and body 
that Adam had before the fall ? 

Ans. Yes. 

4. What is the condition of these faculties and parts of soul 
and body since the fall ? 

Ans. Dead in sin, wholly defiled, utterly disabled, utterly in- 
disposed, and made opposite to all good, wholly inclined to all 
evil, so as he is not able by his own strength to convert himself 
or to prepare himself thereto. 



( lift ) 



5. Is any fallen man able perfectly to keep the commandments 

of God ? 

Ans. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace re- 
ceived in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, 
( i. e. to do his duty ) — but doth daily break them in thought, 
word, and deed. This the man of God knows. "When I 
would do good, how to perform I find not." This Jesus Christ 
knows. " The branch cannot bear fruit of itself." "Without me 
ye can do nothing." 

6. Of what use is the law of God to fallen men ? 

Ans. To teach them the nature and will of God — to show 
them their duty — to convince them of their disability to obey, 
to humble them under a sense of sin and miser)' — to make them 
feel their need of Christ — and bring them to accept of his per- 
fect righteousness. 

7. Do you know of any Arminians or semi-Pelagians in the 
Presbyterian church ? 

Ans. Yes, many. 

8. Are they honest in their adoption of our standards ? 
Ans. No. 

9. Ought they to' be put out of the Presbyterian church ? 
Ans. Yes, if they will not go out. 

10. Are there fatalists enough of your sect to dislodge them? 
Ans. I will tell you more about it, after the meeting of the 

Convention. In the mean time, 

I am your affectionate brother, 

J. L. WILSON. 



DRS. BEECHER, PETERS, NEW HAVEN, 

AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1836!* 

The majority of 1836 refused to condemn a single error of 
Mr. Barnes; nay, besides reversing the decision of the Synod 
as to the man, they connived at the dangerous doctrines of 
the book; they rescued, heresy with acclamations of orthodoxy, 
and clothed our Church in mourning. And where was Doctor 
Peters? He was their leader in this wretched work. He is 
the reputed author, and urgent advocate of the whole system of 
error and oppression. His " Plea " is written professedly to de- 
fend it! Abundant in orthodox professions, in his own report 
of his own speech, he declares, "I not only adhere to the doc- 
trines, but for the most part to the very language, of Mr. 



* See Dr. Breckenridge's second letter — Presbyterian, April 8 f 1837. 



( 116 ) 



Barnes' book;" and of the man he says, " a brother so be- 
loved, so useful, so orthodox," &c. (pages 142-3.) In page 
32, he endorses the " orthodoxy " of Dr. Beecher. So does the 
School of the Prophets at Neiv Haven.* 



* The language is as follows : — " The appeal in the case of Doctor Beecher 
having been introduced to the Assembly, was by the advice of the prosecutor with- 
drawn ; there being no doubt that the Assembly would sustain the decision of the 
court below, in commending this distinguished and orthodox minister to the affec- 
tionate confidence of the churches." p. 32. I ask, did the court below, -without 
qualification, do all this 1 We see, however, Doctor Peters, who calls himself 
" an Edwarderian," avows the doctrines of Doctor Beecher orthodox. In the 
Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. i., March, 1828, is a letter to the Editor of the Chris- 
tian Examiner, (a Socinian paper,) signed Lyman Beecher, " On the Future 
State of Infants" in which is contained the following statements. 

" Until the time of Pelagius, the common mode of stating the doctrine {of ori- 
ginal siii) seems to have been that mankind inherited a corrupt nature. Pelagius 
denied this, and asserted that infants are born pure, and become depraved only by 
breathing a contaminated moral atmosphere, i. e., by example — and that there was 
no certain connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his posterity ; while 
Augustine asserted an innate hereditary depravity, by the imputation of Adam's 
sin. The Reformers, also, with one accord, taught that the sin of Adam was im- 
puted to all his posterity, and that a corrupt nature descends from him to every 
one of his posterity, &c. &c. 

" Our Puritan fathers adhered to the doctrine of original sin, as consisting 
in the imputation of Adam' 's sin and in a hereditary depravity — and this con- 
tinued to be the received doctrine of the churches of JYew England until after 
the time of Edtvards. He adopted the views of the Reformers on the subject 
of original sin, as consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved 
nature transmitted by descent. But after him this mode of stating the doc- 
trine was gradually changed, until long since the prevailing doctrine in JYeiv 
England has been, that men are not guilty of Adam's sin — and that depravity 
is not of the substance of the soul, nor an inherent or physical quality — but is 
"wholly voluntary, and consists in the transgressioji of law in such circum- 
stances as constitutes accountability and desert of punishment. This change 
was not accomplished without much discussion." * * " The pamphlets 
and treatises on this subject were written and the subject settled chiefly before my 
recollection. But I have read them, and have searched the Scriptures, and have, 
from the beginning, accommodated my phraseology to opinions which had been 
adopted as the result of an investigation which commenced more than seventy 
years ago, and has been settled more than fifty years." 

Here is Dr. Beecher's creed, when explaining himself to those who are without. 
This (with some caricaturing of " old " theology) is New Haven Divinity ! This 
is Dr. Peters's orthodoxy ! This is the " Edwarderian " theology which the Sec- 
retary of the Home Missionary Society advocates and diffuses ! (See in the Bib- 
lical Repertory for April, this subject examined at large, by an abler hand.) 



INDEX. 



Appeal, to Synod, tried, 3 

to General Assembly, rejected, 1 1 

, with- 
drawn, 49, 51 

Affair wholly ecclesiastical, 5 

Animosity — none personal, 5, 54 

Agreement 9 

Act and Testimony, sustained,. ... 12 

Argument, pinching, 29 

Alcohol, diluted, 48 

Answer to Porter unsatisfactory,. . . 100 

Antinomians misrepresented, 110 

Arminians' extreme, ib. 

B 

Beecher's reception, 8 

intimacy with Taylor, . . ib. 

pledge unredeemed, 10 

promise unfulfilled, 102 

submission nothing,. ... 15 

Beecher, Edward, 103 

, George, ib. 

, Miss C. E., 104 

— — — -, Peters, New-Haven, 115 



Complaint to Synod, 11 

Call for Charges, 12 

Charges tabled, ib. 

Charge 1. — Depraved nature, 18 

2.— Part First— Total de- 
pravity, 22 

Part Second — Effectual 

calling, 27 

3. — False perfection, 28 

4.— Slander, , . . 30 

i 5. — False doctrines in 2nd 

Church, 33 

6. — Hypocrisy, 35 

Character, privileged, 33 

Confession adopted, 37 

sneered at, ib. 

word of God to us,. ... 35 

teaches error, ib 

Call for evidence, 41 

Censure referred, 46 



D PAGK. 

Difficulties commenced, 12 

, grounds of, 9 

increased, 12 

compromised, ib. 

Difficulty, principal,. 10 

Discipline enjoined, 9 

at an end, 12 

Duty, neglected, 13 

Depravity, entire, 43 

Duplicity — double dealing, 94 

Doctrine, tendency of, 104 

E 

Escape, methods of,. . . .20, 21, 30, 36, 37 

Extracts, connexion of, 45 

Events, certain, not fatalism, 112 

F 

Facts, historical, 6 

Finney, Nettleton compared to,. ... 95 
Fatalism, correspondence on, 113 

G 

Gospel subverted, 107 

H 

History of ability and inability,. ... 24 

High ground taken, 97 

Holy Spirit superseded, 108 

J 

Jargon, contradictory, 42 

L 

Lying, systematic, 94 

M 

Method, in discussion, 5 

Mathews, Dr., garbled, 57 

N 

New doctrines not new, 8 

I false, dangerous,. ... 27 



( 118 ) 



PAGE. • 

o 

Orthodoxy, appearance of, 22 

Offices, two — two salaries, 99 

P 

Plea before Synod, 5 

Points conceded, 18 

Prosperity promoted, 7 

hindered, ib. 

Persons cut off, ib. 

Protest, rejected, 11 

Pledge, violated, 12, 13 

Partiality to the accused, 14, 15, 17 

Prejudice removed, 17 

Protest, unanswerable, 62 

■ , rejected, 93 

Physical inability, not Old School,. 112 

Petitio principii of Miss B., 108 

Presbyterian, how it strikes him,. . . 105 

Q 

Questions, too late, 14 

R 

Resolution, rejected, . . 11 

, postponed, ib. 

Results, legitimate, chargeable, 34 

Regeneration, 43 

, instrumental, 44 

. not conversion, 45 



page. 

S 

Standards, interpretation of, 7 

Slur, unmerited, 15 

Slander, what it is, 32 

Sentence of Presbytery, 40 

of Synod of Cincinnati, ... 47 

of New York,.. 36 

State, Presbyterian Church, 47 

Sound to the core, 98 

Suspected Region, ib. 

Statement unfair, Miss B.'s, 110 

T 

Testimony, worthless, 16 

Twisting and turning, 39 

U 

Unitarian, how it strikes him, 104 

V 

Volitions, opposite, 26 

Views in Theology, 56 

W 

Witnesses, none cited, 15, 16 

Wilson, calumniated, 57 

Withdrawal, reasons of, 52 

proceedings on, 53 



UNANSWERABLE PROTEST. 



CONTENTS 

OF THE 



PAGE. 

Specifications fully proved, 62 

Discipline for heresy destroyed, 63 

Case of the accused greatly aggravated, ib. 

Sinful nature without sin, 64 

Doctrine of human ability worst of heresies, ib. 

L. If human ability be true, imputation cannot be true, ib. 

2. a sinful nature conveyed from Adam cannot be true, 65 

3. no concern for infants, ib. 

4. christian warfare a solecism, ib. 

5. no propriety in praying for a new heart, ib. 

6. no need of Christ's atonement, 66 

7. no need of the Holy Spirit, ib. 

8. indwelling sin impossible, ib. 

9. Unitarians are right, 67 

10. : Universalist's argument good, ib. 

11. no grace in the gospel, 68 

12. propitiation of Christ an expedient to extricate the Lawgiver from a 

dilemma, . . ib. 

13. a denial of regeneration, 69 

14. all rests with men, ib. 

15. those scriptures untrue that represent christians as unable to do good, 70 

16. sin is a misfortune, not a crime, 71 

17. impenitent children ought to be whipped to make them submit to 

God, ib. 

18. degrades the Holy Spirit, 72 

19. no depravity in the soul, 73 

20. denies christian experience, ib. 

21. incurs the fearful penalty, Rev. xxii. 18, 74 

22. both gratuitous and absurd, 75 

23. decoys carnal men into the church, 76 

24. renders the salvation of sinners impossible, 77 

25. sinners have not moral faculties, 78 

26. evasion of scripture, 79 

27. regeneration of infants impossible, ib. 

28. indifference to destructive error, 80 

29. errors tolerated, ib. 

30. doctrines not of Witherspoon, Scott, and others, 82 

31. minciity ought not to be in the ministry, 83 

32. accused ought to have been silenced, according to Bellamy, ib. 



( 120 ) 



PAGE. 

33. accused showed great levity — agreed with Finney — concealed — eva- 

ded — wrested the standards on regeneration and agency of the 
Spirit, 84, 85 

34. God unjust in punishing infants, 87 

35. Calvinistic system false, ib. 

36. the acquittal contumacy, 88 

37. solemn pledge violated, ib. 

38. reasons assigned for acquittal do not reach the case, 89 

39. no assertion of orthodoxy can avail on trial, ib. 

40. subverts the whole system of gospel truth, ib. 

41. spirit and temper of the accused censurable, 90 

42. church corrupted by her ministry, ib. 

43. faithfulness in discipline difficult, 90, 91 

44 leaves a brother in a reckless career, 92 



y % -'imp / -o O o * *v «f 1 



At 
1 • I • 





^» ' • # * * _<G 



4^ V •f^O^A 




/ V^*/ \^\/ V^*/ ■ 




40. 

» 1 1 * Oj. * • « o ' ^ * » < 1 • 




5 s % 



o 



i • <n *,r 






f\ « life 



AT 




1 V f.0* °o 





A A:«:..^ 



* «7 u ^ 




^ V FEB82 

N. MANCHESTER 
INDIANA 46962 





